Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00004)

In a message dated 5/20/07 2:02:07 PM, chrislofting@ozemail.com.au writes:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of yanniru@netscape.net
> > Sent: Monday, 21 May 2007 12:47 AM
> > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of
> > other bubble universes
> >
> > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string
> > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a
> > matter of opinion but a consequence of physics.
> >
> 
> No. It is speculation and is to physics what intelligent design is to
> evolution. No evidence, all belief. The point with mathematics is that it
> can represent the imagined as it can the real. As such, anything sourced in
> mathematics is not necessarily real.
> 
Does this mean that all your I-Ching type fractal mathematics which underlies 
all your theories of psychology and evolution, etc., has no basis in reality? 
;-)   Or, that evolution theory is 100% true in all its aspects and 
assumptions based on chance or random mutation? 

So, what is "real"?   Is a thought in my mind real?   Is the image I see of 
the outer world real?   Is a pain I feel in my toe real?   Unfortunately, since 
mathematics can only deal with and represent countable or measurable things, 
I doubt that it can deal with anything supposedly unreal one can imagine, like 
fairies or ghosts for instance (even though those imaginary things might be 
real images in our minds).   In the same way, it can't deal with consciousness 
(awareness, will, qualia, etc.) or anything else subjectively or 
experientially real -- such as a near death out of body experience or other transcendental 
epiphanies and intuitions I've had (and many others have reported) in and out 
of deep meditation or perfect concentration.

Therefore, while string theory mathematics does predict the "multiverse" -- I 
don't think it can tell us anything about what that multiverse actually is or 
where those parallel universes actually come from.   Just as such theories 
also predict primal matter as "strings" and   "membranes" -- I don't think it 
can tell us what those strings or membranes are or where they came from.   But, 
nevertheless, I do think such predictions are real in the same sense that my 
thoughts and consciousness are real.   How, can they not be, if I can use them 
to manipulate real objects as I will it?   (Or, is that a figment of my 
imagination? ;-) 

However, since all mathematical measures must start and end somewhere -- that 
empty (but potentially full zero-point) singularity out of which this whole 
universe appears, must be as real as the exact zero-point that the racing car 
tire rests on in the space between the particles of the starting line before it 
begins its measured run down the track -- which can be measured 
mathematically from one zero-point in Planck space to another.   So, whatever mathematics 
can correctly measure or determine through its proven logic must be as real as 
are the mathematical equations themselves, the metaphysical and physical 
universe they describe, or the conscious beings that thought them up or discovered 
them in the universal mind's infinite information bank. 

Therefore, the zero-points of infinite energy in absolute space, from which 
all mathematical measurements start from and end on, and where all cosmic 
intelligence lies, are also real.   And, since those points all have infinite axes 
of potential spinergy or G-force, they serve as the basis of the multiverse, 
and all other mathematical predictions -- no matter how counter intuitive they 
are.

In such a case, true "intelligent design" (not "creationism") is as real as 
could be the universal consciousness that imagined this universe before it woke 
up its spinergy to form this material universe and all the beings in it -- 
which we can mathematically (but not sensorially) know everything about, both 
metaphysically and physically.   

The problem -- so that non mathematicians could understand it -- is to 
interpret that mathematical knowledge into graphical metaphors, word pictures, or 
symbolic images the mind can visualize and truly comprehend the nature of... 
Something, that most current scientific theories (except, perhaps, Einstein's 
special theory of relativity) have yet to accomplish satisfactorily.

Therefore to deny the real existence of the zero-point of pure consciousness 
surrounded by its infinitely intelligent potential force existing as abstract 
non linear spin motion, containing infinite holographic information or 
knowledge (pertaining to its experiences and structures during its previous cyclic 
existence) as interference patterns of potentially radiant energy fields that 
fractally *involve* (before physical forms *evolve* after symmetry is broken) -- 
is to deny the existence of the universe itself.   

But, if we admit the existence of that singularity, with this universe 
spinning on only three of its potential infinite axes, is to admit the possible 
existence of the multiverse and its infinite parallel universes, as well as 
acknowledge the simultaneous existence of the universal consciousness that is 
potentially, if not actively or continuously aware of everything that is, was or 
ever will be.

The only things unreal, then, are;   (A) The imaginary ideas we have that 
what we sensorially experience of the universe is actually what it really is -- 
which only mathematics (in all its aspects from algebra to geometry) or our own 
intuitive visualizations and understandings, can reveal...   And; (B) 
Whatever fantasies we conjure up about supernatural beings and miraculous occurrences 
based on misinterpretation or literal belief in written words that are 
mistranslated, intentionally fictional, or metaphorical.

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]