Theos-Talk Archives (November 2007 Message tt00263)

It seems to me Leon that rather than look at your theory with an open mind (if that is possible for a scientist) they compare with their own established and inherited theory.  If science would question its own theories as rigourously as it questions new theories we would be far more advanced.  

Saw a doco on the Universe which stated that Saturn and Uranas (I think) had a chance tilt or something which caused a meteoric storm which eventually hit the moon and which caused our planet to tilt.  Without all these 'chance' events which by the way were ordered enough to ensure that planet earth was able to sustain life through the tilt and the four seasons the tilt produced.  How would anyone know what was occuring in the skies billions of years ago.  Science tends to look at the effects and then circles around itself with maybe's about the cause. Based on their studies this chance event could again occur at any time and planet earth could rotate out of existence!  They even blame this meteoric storm for causing the craters on the moon, well to me these craters look like planetary cancer, but to suggest that the moon was in a state of decay would throw the scientific world into an unexplainable spin!

Cheers
Cass


----- Original Message ----
From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:02:10 PM
Subject: Theos-World Fwd: [jcs-online] The Binding Problem and Quantum Entanglement

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]




Yahoo! Groups Links




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

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