Theos-Talk Archives (November 2007 Message tt00262)

Former physicist skeptic finally coming around to see the  
theosophical scientific view (my ABC Model) may be correct after  
all. ;-)
Check the web illustrations in my earliest letter below.
Lenny
__________________________________

> From: "HELEN CHENEY" <HELENDRUMS@msn.com>
> Date: November 27, 2007 2:48:40 PM EST
> To: "Leon Maurer" <leonmaurer@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] The Binding Problem and Quantum Entanglement
>
> Leon,
>
> Leon,
>
> Recently I have been reading papers in the field of stochastic  
> electrodynamics. In essence these papers contend that quantum  
> mechanics as well as f=ma and much more can be derived from the  
> zero point EM fields of the vacuum. Their results remind me very  
> much of what you have been saying and I recommend that you read  
> some of these papers. No mention of consciousness though.
>
> The best source up to 1995 is the Calphysics Institute work on ZPE.
>
> http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
>
> They ran into problems with nonlinear forces but that has been  
> apparently resolved by a more recent paper:
>
> arXiv:quant-ph/0501011 [ps, pdf, other]
> Title: Contribution from stochastic electrodynamics to the  
> understanding of quantum mechanics
> Authors: L. de la Pena, A. M. Cetto
> Comments: 34 pages
> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Richard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leon Maurer
> To: HELEN CHENEY
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] The Binding Problem and Quantum Entanglement
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 11/21/0712:39 AM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
>
>> Apparently you do not believe in the Pauli Principle which states  
>> that no two fermions can occupy the same state (pardon the pun)
>
> As usual, you misinterpret everything I say to enable your nit  
> picking of my ABC theory... And, "everything being connected"  
> doesn't mean occupying the same space or "state" .  Connectedness  
> could just as well be the effect one coadunate radiant field has on  
> another.  Two light rays of different color frequencies when  
> projected on the same surface become connected when they form a new  
> color frequency wave.  Different particles in close proximity are  
> connected by their common gravity field. And I believe everything  
> is connected by the initial cosmogenetic spiritual field that  
> surrounds the entire universe, and whose center point of  
> origination is *entangled* everywhere in the Plank vacuum
>>
>> BTW I have published in the field of adaptive optics. One of my  
>> papers was mentioned in all the trade journals associated with AO.
>
> That's nice.  So, what has that to do with understanding the nature  
> of fundamental reality, or even quantum dynamics -- which quantum  
> physics can only describe symbolically with their eliminative  
> renormalized mathematics?  What do they know about the geometry of  
> the radiant ZPE fields themselves that in-form the particles, or  
> the dynamic structure of the particles fundamental wave nature?
>>
>> What are the the fundamental laws of cycles and holographic  
>> electrodynamics?
>> I am only familiar with quantum electrodynamics. The infinities  
>> you constantly speak of are purposefully removed from QED.  
>> Infinite spin momentum does not exist
>
> Quantum electrodynamics doesn't explain anything.  All it does is  
> describe the energy relationships between fundamental particles.   
> What has that to do with the laws governing the origin of the  
> particles themselves?
>
> The fundamental laws of cycles are inherent in the "original  
> spin" (pardon the pun) momentum of the cosmic singularity -- which  
> are the basis of    all the laws of electricity (electrodynamics)  
> such as resonance, induction, capacitance, resistance, etc., that  
> are also the laws governing holography, as well as being the basis  
> of all information transformation, encoding, storage, transmission,  
> etc.
>
> The only place infinite spin doesn't exist is on the dimensional  
> level of overall absolute space where phenomenal (i.e. linearly  
> metric) matter/energy fields exist.  But it would have to exist  
> potentially in the abstract nonlinear spin momentum of Absolute  
> SPACE -- which, if that didn't exist, nothing else would...   
> Although, I understand your religious belief in materialism  
> precludes your admission that such a G-force, along with  
> consciousness can exist "in potential" as the basis of ALL reality  
> both metaphysical and physical.  Nevertheless, the origin of the  
> ZPE that is a reflection of that zero-point absolute space, and is  
> the generator and energizer of ALL quantum particles, must exist as  
> the ubiquitous rootless root of everything.  All your mindless  
> claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> If such unconditioned existence were not possible, how would you  
> account for unmeasurable and invisible qualia, dark matter, one  
> dimensional lines or strings of force, energy waves, BEC,  
> entanglement, etc. (without your renormalized mathematics) -- which  
> still can't even come close to explaining the initial state of the  
> cosmos, or any fundamental particle during the big bang inflation  
> period prior to the breaking of symmetry.  How long a path would it  
> be if you circled the earth on every possible great circle without  
> once repeating any circle?  How many possible spin axes are there  
> in any spherical field of metric space?
>
> So, if you can't explain that, what evidence do you have that ABC  
> doesn't describe it fully, in logical fractal geometric field  
> progressions (along with their coenergetics or electrodynamics) --  
> that ultimately arrive at a state of physical metric space which is  
> entirely consistent with the quantum electrodynamics, after (ha,  
> ha) they "purposely remove infinities" that must underlie  
> everything finite.  Naturally, if they admitted those infinities,  
> they would have to give up their reductive materialistic belief  
> that matter is the cause of consciousness, and that everything just  
> appeared, if by magic, out of nothing.  What's the difference  
> between that unfounded belief than the belief in a personal God  
> that "created" it all?  Could all your quantum electrodynamics --   
> accurate as they are in determining physical properties of matter  
> -- just be a scientific dogma smokescreen continually maintained to  
> cover over the religious belief in eliminative materialism?
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Leon Maurer
>> To: HELEN CHENEY
>> Cc: Philip Benjamin
>> Sent: Tuesday,
>> November 20, 2007 9:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] The Binding Problem and Quantum  
>> Entanglement
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2007, at 11/14/077:55 AM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
>>
>>> The word quantum means separate. All fermions (matter) are  
>>> necessarily separate. Once again I question your premises
>>
>> As I question yours... There is no such thing as "separate" --  
>> since all fermions (as all other quantized energy) are linked  
>> together by the G- force of fundamental absolute SPACE.  The  
>> definition of the word quantum, as you see it, is nothing more  
>> than scientific convenience to give meaning to the false  
>> assumption its mathematics is based on, that all reality begins  
>> with particulate matter (that actually is compacted energy --  
>> which is really nothing more than "space in motion," according to  
>> Einstein).
>>
>> "Quantum" actually means a discrete quantity of compacted space,  
>> or as my dictionary defines it; "a discrete quantity of energy  
>> proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it  
>> represents. ? an analogous discrete amount of any other physical  
>> quantity, such as momentum or electric charge." It does not mean  
>> "separate."  Therefore, there is no such thing as a "separate  
>> fermion".  Which proves again that you are full of BS and are  
>> intent on discrediting the ABC hypothesis.  Which does nothing  
>> more than convince me that I'm probably right after all about the  
>> true nature of fundamental reality and the true source of  
>> everything -- including consciousness (awareness, will, qualia,  
>> etc.).
>>
>> So, apparently, judging from the above phony falsification, none  
>> of your nit picking amounts to a hill of beans.  You once called  
>> me an "impostor" and a "fraud" -- which now you've mirrored right  
>> back at yourself.
>>
>> So, I guess you're not the "open minded and imaginative physicist"  
>> I'm looking for to "qualify" and "quantify" the ABC hypothesis --  
>> that, in spite    of your nay saying and spurious "physics"  
>> claims, starts with the initial *existent* quality and quantity of  
>> absolute zero-point-instant primal SPACE that is both the source  
>> of consciousness and matter-energy simultaneously, prior to the  
>> radiation and fractal involution of the initial coenergetic fields  
>> -- based on the fundamental laws of cycles and holographic  
>> electrodynamics built into zero-point spin momentum.  (Some  
>> scientists now call this, with reference to holographic non  
>> locality of both information and consciousness, "phase conjugate  
>> adaptive resonance" -- which has little to do with "separate"  
>> quantum particles.)
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Leon Maurer
>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [jcs-online] The Binding Problem and Quantum  
>>> Entanglement
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2007, at 10/21/0711:03 PM, RLG wrote:
>>>
>>>> Due to the extreme difficulty of both the qualia problem, and  
>>>> the hard problem, it seems prudent to first look at the binding  
>>>> problem.  The binding problem arises because people believe that  
>>>> existence is comprised of separate things.  But the idea that  
>>>> the world is a collection of separate things is challenged by  
>>>> both quantum theory and relativity.  From relativity we know  
>>>> that there are no separate places and times along null  
>>>> geodesics.  Null geodesics satisfy the equation (g_ik)*(dx^i)* 
>>>> (dx^k)=0 which means they have no proper distance, and no proper  
>>>> time, in physical spacetime.  A series of traveling photons,  
>>>> that all started their journey from the same coordinate location  
>>>> in spacetime, all occupy the same place and time (relative to  
>>>> themselves) throughout their entire journey.  So it may be that  
>>>> the unity of conscious experience results from all neural  
>>>> correlates of consciousness occupying a common null geodesic.   
>>>> Thus, within a given brain, every neural correlate of  
>>>> consciousness is in direct contact with all the others since  
>>>> there is no spatial, nor any temporal, separation.  If this is  
>>>> true then it might be helpful in solving both the qualia problem  
>>>> and the hard problem (although I am not sure how).  Null  
>>>> geodesics also help to explain the strange entanglement  
>>>> properties of the quantum world.  For instance EPR effects can  
>>>> be explained, among all of the aforementioned traveling photons,  
>>>> because they are in direct contact with each other at all times  
>>>> throughout their journeys.
>>>>
>>>> However, there are still two types of binding: quantum  
>>>> entanglement binding and the subjective binding of conscious  
>>>> experience.  Physics still has to be extended in order to relate  
>>>> these two because the hard problem clearly shows the failure of  
>>>> material stuff to deliver subjective stuff.  Clearly there are  
>>>> great discoveries yet to be made here.
>>>
>>> Here's one possibility... That considers both the null geodesic  
>>> and the entanglement concepts.
>>>
>>> If conscousness is a fundamental qualitative aspect (potential  
>>> awareness, will, qualia, etc.) of primal SPACE located,  
>>> ubiquitously, in the Planck    vacuum at the zero-point center of  
>>> origin (or "singularity') of the fractally involved ZPE fields  
>>> that generates and energizes all the fundamental particles -- the  
>>> "quantum entanglement" of those zero-point centers could be the  
>>> efficient cause of the "binding of conscious experience."
>>>
>>> Also, the associate ZPE fields surrounding each (and all) of  
>>> those those zero-points of consciousness -- would logically be  
>>> the medium of perceptive information encoded as wave interference  
>>> patterns on the surfaces of those fields... Their magnetically  
>>> resonant nature would then account for both the assembly of  
>>> fragmentally processed visual imagery in the brain, as well as  
>>> the binding of both mind and memory to the brain -- since these  
>>> sub quantum fields would be resonantly entangled,  
>>> holographically, with all the local and global magnetic  
>>> information fields surrounding every brain neuron and each  
>>> functional group of neurons.
>>>
>>> This entanglement of all fields of consciousness would also  
>>> account for the local perception of a remote pain being felt  
>>> simultaneously by global self reflective consciousness -- as well  
>>> as explain the magnetically resonant holographic coordination of  
>>> the body fields and their 3D mapping, with the perceived visual  
>>> field along with the coordinated kinesthetic and visual  
>>> processing (and resultant em information fields) in the brain...  
>>> Thus, enabling a ball player to catch a high fly on the run and  
>>> jump, and a clay sculptor to place the point of his tool on the  
>>> exact point on the model that corresponds with the corresponding  
>>> point on the holographic image of his subject carried by and  
>>> perceived in            his mind field -- with perfect precision.
>>>
>>> From a physics and engineering standpoint, the 3D mental images  
>>> in sequential motion (related to alpha-beta-gamma rhythms) would  
>>> be experienced at the apparent point of visual consciousness in  
>>> the center of the brain, by detecting the modulated reflected  
>>> phonons of the coherent energy radiation, covering the entire  
>>> frequency spectrum of the mind field, willfully projected from  
>>> the infinite spin momentum centers of ZPE fields (corresponding  
>>> to each pixel of the original images on the retinas) that  
>>> holographically reconstructs and merges the interference patterns  
>>> of the combined stereo-binocular retinal images processed in the  
>>> visual cortex.  (I can pictorially imagine this time sequential  
>>> multidimensional process, but find it difficult to explain  
>>> linguistically without reference to animated 3-D illustrations  
>>> and flow diagrams.)   The 3 dimensional hardwired crossover optic  
>>> nerve network between either one or both eyes, and the dual brain  
>>> hemispheres, are also instrumental in this process of stereo- 
>>> binocular vision -- which even further complicates the  
>>> engineering explanation problem.
>>>
>>> This unified field concept -- which, incidentally, at its  
>>> physical level, is closely in conformance with Einstein's General  
>>> Relativity, Maxwell-Ampere-Faraday's energy equations, and the  
>>> "holographic paradigm" theories of Bohm-Pribram et al, as well as  
>>> with leading edge string, LQG, axion, tachyon, microlepton,  
>>> aether, cosmological, etc., theories (all of which are as yet  
>>> incomplete since they don't recognize consciousness as the only  
>>> creative force in nature) -- seems to me to be far more  
>>> explanatory, and parsimonious than any theories of consciousness  
>>> based on it being an epiphenomena of the brain's neural  
>>> processing or physical structure.  It also completely eliminates  
>>> the hard problem -- since the "experience of consciousness"  
>>> occurs in primal SPACE that is outside the realm of physical  
>>> description.
>>>
>>> The only difference, with relation to physics, would be a change  
>>> of its paradigm to include the separation between consciousness  
>>> and matter or    subjectivity and objectivity, as well as accept  
>>> their meta-or supra-physical and physical field interconnection,  
>>> and to recognize that the source of all matter is the spin- 
>>> momentum force of the ubiquitous and entangled zero-point  
>>> "singularity" of that Absolute primal SPACE -- whose dual nature  
>>> of potential consciousness and matter would become the  
>>> fundamental a priori basis of all theories of physical spatial  
>>> dynamics -- which would have to consider both subjective and  
>>> objective evidence as being equally valid, while eliminating or  
>>> modifying the empirical basis of falsification.
>>>
>>> The simplest way I've found to logically explain the initial  
>>> involution and evolution of the necessarily fractal involved  
>>> fields of consciousness and    matter, and their electrodynamic  
>>> and holographic interrelationships, would be through symbolic 3D  
>>> topological and geometric field illustrations such as these:   
>>> Meditate on them, and you might better comprehend what I am  
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-col_3.jpg
>>> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Fract-Exp-Lt-Dk-matter-text.png
>>> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
>>>
>>> Hopefully, some open minded and imaginative physicists might be  
>>> able to work out the electrodynamics and descriptive topological  
>>> geometries, and find an experimental proof that would verify this  
>>> general hypothesis that could very well underly a final unified  
>>> field theory of everything.  I would be happy to see one or more  
>>> of them win a Nobel prize in physics, chemistry and physiology  
>>> before I check out with the ghost in the machine. :-)
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Leon Maurer
>>>


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