Theos-Talk Archives (April 2008 Message tt00046)

On Apr 11, 2008, at 4/11/081:07 PM, John Clem wrote:

> Leon,
>
> Apparently your concept of Einstein's singularity is integral to your
> ABC theory of consciousness/mind/brain as you explain below.
> Therefore it is within the scope of this group to respond with the
> very interesting history of Einstein's singularity.
>
> The entire history of the singularity may be found at
> http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html
> The long and short of it is that this singularity is tied to
> Einstein's claim that gravitational waves do not exist. Einstein and
> Rosen could not derive a plane gravitational wave without also
> getting a singularity; and so they concluded that gravitational waves
> could not exist because singularities cannot exist in nature.
>
> Here is the crucial excerpt. But read through the linked article for
> the entire history. Clem
>
>
> "What originally led Einstein to the conclusion that gravitational
> waves do not exist? Having set out to find an exact solution for
> plane gravitational waves, he and Rosen found themselves unable to do
> so without introducing singularities into the components of the
> metric that describes the waves. This was surely not at all what they
> had hoped for. But, like good physicists confronted with the
> unexpected, they attempted to turn it to their advantage. In fact,
> they felt they could show that no regular periodic wavelike solutions
> to the equations were possible. Instead of a solution to the Einstein
> equations, they had a nonexistence proof for solutions representing
> gravitational wavesÑ a far more important and breathtaking result."
>
> "Today it is well known that one cannot construct a single coordinate
> system to describe plane gravitational waves without encountering a
> singularity somewhere in spacetime. But it is also understood that
> such a singularity is merely apparent and not real. It is a
> coordinate singularity, analogous to the problem one encounters when
> attempting to find the longitude of the North Pole. Einstein was one
> of the first to understand the critical difference between coordinate
> and physical singularities, but in the 1930s there was still no
> mathematical formalism for distinguishing between the two. It was
> something that had to be worked out by trial and, frequently, error.
> Only after World War II did the identification of singularities
> become rigorous. In 1936 Einstein and Rosen were too cautious,
> treating a harmless coordinate effect as a real physical pathology.
> It simply did not occur to them that trying to cover the whole of
> their spacetime with a single coordinate system was asking too much."

LM: I have no argument with this... So long as the mathematics  
applies solely to the physical metric spacetime based on the non  
Euclidian coordinate geometry of relativity theory.

But, the ABC hypothesis (based on the assumption that if the metric  
universe is a hologram, then its fundamental geometry must be  
fractal) rests on a completely different geometry (than conventional  
physics) -- whose origin would have to be a true *singularity*  
consisting of non metric (nonlinear) infinite spin momentum of an  
intangible and immeasurable absolute space or "aether" (as defined by  
Einstein) that is empty of all objective form.  IOW this eternal  
unchangeable, immovable and insubstantial primal substance, as the  
noumena of all phenomena, would have to be infinitely energetic,  
located everywhere, as well as *potentially* both subjectively  
conscious and objectively energetic-substantial (between zero and  
infinity) when manifestly expressed.

The only known mathematics that might apply in describing this source  
is Cantor's infinite set theory, and the only fundamental equation  
would necessarily have to be 0 = °.
    
Therefore, the rules of ordinary single or cylindrical coordinate  
mathematics would not apply to the *singularity* of that absolute  
Space...  But, only to the subsequent ubiquitous fractally involved  
ZPE fields that surround the apparently individualized *finite* zero- 
points located at the G-force crossover tangency points (twistors or  
wormholes) between adjacent inner fractal fields and their mother  
field, that descend in infinite triune fractal iterations in dual  
parallel octaval series (analogous to the initial triune cosmic monad  
and its 12 inner fields as pictured in my ABC diagrams). <http:// 
canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13>

Since I can visualize this in multidimensional graphic animation, and  
describe it by 2-D and 3-D cross-sectional diagrams... Except for the  
electrodynamics and QCD related to the *physical* space time  
continuum -- there is no need for any mathematical equations in my  
explanations... Just like Einstein was able to explain relativity  
theory in word-pictures, without use of any mathematics, and Greene  
was able to explain string physics.

However -- since the finite ZPE source "singularities" of material  
physics, and the 0=° singularity of ABC theory are two different  
things altogether -- the apparently *finite physical* singularities  
at the root of ZPE, black holes, stars, galaxies, etc., can all be  
described (for the benefit of physicists who can only see the  
structure and dynamics of the universe symbolically:-) by string  
theory mathematics and twistor geometry coupled with supersymmetry  
and gauge theories, such as suggested by Penrose, Witten, Hodges, et  
al. .

In the meantime, my main interest is in understandably explaining the  
ABC theory to ordinary people -- while, at the same time, hoping to  
interest professional scientists, of every discipline, into accepting  
its geometric topological framework, and cloaking it with a  
scientific mathematics (and hopefully, experimental proofs) that can  
verify its reality, and pass peer review for publication in  
professional scientific journals as well as popular science magazines  
and newspapers ... The purpose being to ultimately convince the  
entire world, that everything and everyone is linked together in  
mutual interdependence, through the ubiquitous universal  
consciousness... And that the overall condition of the world, its  
culture, economics and ecology, is everyone's individual  
responsibility... Working together in harmoniously balanced mutual  
cooperation and altruism -- rather than disharmoniously separate and  
disruptive competition and greed, or with passive belief that an ex- 
cosmic God-creator guides and controls our individual and common  
destiny.

Accordingly, I think that this should be the motivating goal of all  
*true* scientists -- who understand that science and philosophy must  
eventually be merged and inseparably linked, as the total source of  
universal knowledge and understanding of Mankind's place and purpose  
in the universe.  I think that the integrated study of subjective  
consciousness and its informational linkage with objective mind- 
memory, brain, body, senses, etc. -- from a philosophically  
scientific, physically integrated psychological basis -- will go a  
long way toward achieving such aims.

So let's keep our minds open to all ideas, regardless of whether or  
not they contradict the assumptions, beliefs, or prejudices of  
conventional science or established religions (of all disciplines and/ 
or theologies).

Best wishes,
Leon Maurer
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
>>
>> Clem,
>>
>> What it sounds like and is, are not quite the same.
>>
>> In my interpretation of Einstein's "singularity" -- he meant a non
>> phenomenal individual, intangible, non metric substance underlying,
>> generating and supporting the phenomenal beginning of the spacetime
>> continuum -- that contained all the potential mass-energy of the
>> resultant universe... And, which could be considered as an apparent
>> BEC, or condensation of EVERYTHING -- acting uniquely and
>> ubiquitously as if it were ONE THING... Whether spread out in
>> infinitely circumferential, fractally involved fields within fields
>> within fields, or concentrated everywhere in singular non metric or
>> zero-points within the metric spacetime continuum... Thus, allowing
>> every fundamental quantum particle, to have its own individual point
>> sourced spin momentum wave function origin.  (Remembering that the
>> exact mathematical center of the spinergy source of ZPE is the
>> immaterial zero-point Aether itself.)  Incidentally, this fractal
>> involvement of all radiant fields in conjunction with the ubiquitous
>> cyclic zero-point spin momentum, is the fundamental basis of all the
>> laws of harmonics, holographic information storage and transmission,
>> and electrodynamics that underly all physical forms of potentially
>> conscious matter-energy.
>>
>> So, if we look for "megaspace" in metric spacetime, the only thing it
>> can be is the intangible Aether located at every mathematical zero-
>> point within that "total non metric and metric physical space".
>> Thus, these adjacent or coadunate mathematical zero-points are
>> physical parts of all linear, planar, and solid forms within all
>> fractal involved fields of both hyperspacetime, configuration
>> spacetime, and all fundamental particle-wave forms... All,
>> originating radially from a singular zero-point source grounded in
>> the ubiquitous Aether or total space itself.
>>
>> It follows that all absolute distance of linear motion in any
>> relative spatial manifold or matrix is measured (using that spatial
>> metric) between its absolute zero-points of start and finish -- or
>> between one non local zero-point of Aether and another.
>>
>> Thus, all spherical fields are composed of opposite (polar) radial or
>> centrifugally generated 1 dimensional linear rays of G-force, or
>> fundamental spin-momentum, that originate from an absolute zero-
>> point singularity... And weave -- in a continually repeating  
>> series of
>> spiral vortex mobius Klein circles (like figure eights inside
>> inwardly descending circles) -- a harmonic series of triune,
>> fractally involved inner fields (like bubbles within bubbles within
>> bubbles, etc.)... All, continuously and globally interconnected
>> through their zero-points of tangency and origins... with the
>> beginning and ending of all force lines being the contiguously
>> singular Aether.
>>
>> This can account for all the multiple dimensions of "hyperspace," or
>> so called "compacted space" in string, supersymmetry, M theories,
>> etc. ... And can, by extrapolation, easily explain entanglement or
>> action at a distance... While allowing expression of all aspects of
>> conscious perception and willful response to sensory information
>> processed electrochemically by the brain's complex neurology into
>> modulated electromagnetic wave interference patterns, transmitted
>> to (and stored in) higher order, longer lasting hyperspace mind and
>> memory fields by means of phase conjugate adaptive resonance
>> processes... To be directly detected, perceived by zero-point Aether
>> centered consciousness by simply, willful projection and reflection
>> of higher order coherent radiation -- to which all lower order
>> material substance, such as brain body meat and bone, is
>> completely transparent. ;-)
>>
>> Leon
>> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2008, at 4/10/0811:21 AM, yanniru@... wrote:
>>
>>> Leon,
>>>
>>> It sounds much more
>>> like a BEC than a singularity.
>>> Singularities refer to points in space.
>>> Granted BECs have pretty much the same properties
>>> well not exactly since the properties of a singularity are at a  
>>> point
>>> whereas BECs are spread out in space- in this case all megaspace.
>>> Clem
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@...>
>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 3:54 am
>>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>
>>> I think we have a common ground here, despite other differences
>>> (unless I am becoming confused with who is who) concerning my
>>> tentative support for CL's hypothesis. I would like to go into this
>>> more, when I have some time.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 6:13:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>
>>> Clem,
>>> The higher
>>> gravitational space that
>>> surrounds and pervades our universe,
>>> being ubiquitous, indivisible and not separable into
>>> individual parts, is *one thing*, interconnected everywhere with  
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> Therefore it is, in itself an "absolute singularity, " that is  
>>> empty of all
>>> form, but infinitely energetic and also infinitely extensible
>>> and flexible, like Einstein's Aether, and
>>> Nagarjuna's Buddha- mind;
>>> Shunyata.
>>> Len
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4/9/088:14 AM, yanniru@aim. com wrote:
>>>> Michael,
>>>> There is an alternative-
>>>> something has always existed,
>>>> which is the basis of my cosmology.
>>>> So no need for something out of nothing.
>>>> There is no need for an absolute singularity.
>>>>
>>>> But infinity still exists in time and space;
>>>> and the higher gravitational space that
>>>> surrounds and pervades our universe
>>>> may operate as one, at once;
>>>> non-local instantaneous
>>>> action at a distance:
>>>> Newton's gravity
>>>> Clem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@ YAHOO.COM>
>>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com
>>>> Sent: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 5:05 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>>
>>>> I will concede that the extra dimensions are non varifiable (non
>>>> testable). The 32 dimensions might adequately explain all of our
>>>> subjective observations. .. however, this does not mean that the
>>>> other dimensions are not there.
>>>>
>>>> My reasoning for stating that there are in fact an infinite
>>>> number of dimensions has to do with the logical conclusion of a
>>>> hypothetical concept of the cosmos as an absolute singularity, and
>>>> the mechanism/condition set that I argue as the only one that
>>>> would satisfy the creation of everything from "nothing". Sorry, I
>>>> don't have time to go into further detail. Anyway, you would be
>>>> correct in the argument that it is inherently unscientific (as a
>>>> whole... it can still have aspects tested for scientific
>>>> consistency) .
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: "yanniru@aim. com" <yanniru@aim. com>
>>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 4:12:55 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There may be an infinite amout of dimensions in semantics or even
>>>> philosophy.  But in physics there is at most 32 dimensions  
>>>> according to Paul Bird
>>>> http://arxiv. org/PS_cache/ physics/pdf/ 0604/0604225v1. pdf
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@ YAHOO.COM>
>>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com
>>>> Sent: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 4:40 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>>
>>>> You are both wrong. There are actually an infinite number of
>>>> dimensions.. . it is only a matter of which ones are relevent to
>>>> our observations of the perceived universe.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: "yanniru@aim. com" <yanniru@aim. com>
>>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 1:48:32 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>>
>>>> BB, You are just pissed at me
>>>> because I have shown you
>>>> and the world that your 12d theory
>>>> is just a subset of my 26d cosmology
>>>> I do not blame you
>>>> Clem and everybody else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: barron.burrow <barron.burrow@ ntlworld. com>
>>>> To: A Group MindBrain <MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com>
>>>> Cc: barron.burrow <barron.burrow@ ntlworld. com>
>>>> Sent: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 9:43 pm
>>>> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr?s de Moriand
>>>>
>>>> --- In MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com, yanniru@ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BB, I own a farm. Would you like to bet?
>>>>> yanniru
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I would.
>>>>
>>>> I am certain there isn't a chance that the LHC at CERN will find
>>>> the Higgs boson. Ever.
>>>>
>>>> I know that the 12-D psychophysical theory is the solution to the
>>>> hard problem now -- not because of what I've said re: the Higgs
>>>> mechanism, but something else, which there is neither the time nor
>>>> space to go into at present.
>>>>
>>>> Since I still have the best notices on the Web, as far as I am
>>>> aware, I probably do know what I am talking about. As I say on my
>>>> site:
>>>> "The commendations below are from academics in a number of
>>>> countries, and in a variety of different fields -- including
>>>> medicine, psychology, psychoanalysis, modern physics, computer
>>>> science/programming , biotech, IT (telecommunication networks,
>>>> computer hardware), artificial intelligence, quantum computing,
>>>> cognitive anthropology, philology, and semiotics"
>>>>
>>>> -- and some of these notices are from distinguished people,  
>>>> including Prof Alwyn Scott, Founding Director of the Center for
>>>> Nonlinear Studies at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. As "a
>>>> sometime neuroscientist"  Scott is also the author of Neuroscience
>>>> (1977), Stairway to the Mind: the Controversial Science of
>>>> Consciousness (Springer-Verlag, 1995), co-Editor (with Professor
>>>> Stuart Hameroff) of Tucson II: Towards a Science of Consciousness
>>>> (Springer-Verlag, 1996); as well as many papers in the field of
>>>> neurophysiology over a period of two decades.
>>>> . http://homepage. ntlworld. com/barron. burrow/
>>>>
>>>> You said that you'd been to a lecture by Brian Greene at Harvard,
>>>> and he'd spoken of thirteen dimensions -- whilst no one but
>>>> myself, according to you, had ever argued for twelve dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> However, when I posted to this list a paper by the famous
>>>> physicist Quamran Vafa that went into detail hypothesising
>>>> precisely twelve dimensions, you never replied.
>>>>
>>>> I also pointed you in the direction of the twelve dimensional
>>>> theories of the inventor of the Bell helicopter, Arthur M. Young,
>>>> as well as that of Professor DG Leahy (a mathematical physicist
>>>> at Fermilab, J Iuliano, whose work is highly praised on Leahy's  
>>>> site,
>>>> has given the greatest possible support to my own model ever since
>>>> 1999).
>>>>
>>>> You get things badly in a muddle, Dick, mostly because you're an
>>>> attention-seeker. For instance, now that you've suddenly begun to
>>>> champion neurons, you've already forgotten that just a few months
>>>> ago you were heaping ecstatic praise on Pereira's paper on
>>>> astrocytes (the glial cells in the synapses *between* neurons). If
>>>> you check out the archive, you'll find a post of mine that makes
>>>> some profound remarks about the bottom-up input of glia to neurons
>>>> (via the spinal column).
>>>>
>>>> You tend to put things together in a higgledy-piggledy fashion,
>>>> Dick -- or is it currently John Lincoln Clem, formerly John Joseph
>>>> Klem, formerly Crapopolous (or whatever your ex-wife got you to
>>>> call yourself), formerly Richard David Pesach ben Avraham Ruquist?
>>>> -- because, as I've said before, you lack the full shilling.  
>>>> However, since you're a great one for Reincarnation, maybe you'll
>>>> fare better next time around.
>>>>
>>>> If you make it, though, it'll be without the farm :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BEB.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: barron.burrow <barron.burrow@ ...>
>>>>> To: A Group MindBrain <MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com>;
>>>>> JerryIuliano@ ...
>>>>> Cc: barron.burrow <barron.burrow@ ...>
>>>>> Sent: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 4:20 pm
>>>>> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Rencontr̩s de Moriand
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In MindBrain@yahoogrou ps.com, Andrew Beckwith
>>>>> <projectbeckwith2@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> å å å
>>>>>> å å  I go to a lot of cosmology conferences. The latest
>>>>>> å å  Reconitres De Moriond, 2008 in cosmology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> å
>>>>>
>>>>> å
>>>>>
>>>>> BEB writes: I hear that the new Large Hadron Collider at CERN
>>>> (which I guess is what you're referring to re: Rencontr̩s de
>>>> Moriand) should be up and running in May.å
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Sunday Times says: "The real goal of the grid iså to work
>>>> with the LHC in tracking down nature?Ûªs most elusive particle,
>>>> the Higgs boson. Predicted in theory but never yet found, the
>>>> Higgs is supposed to be what gives matter mass".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet the farm, you know,å that the Higgs boson will never be
>>>> revealed by the LHC. The reason is that, according to my twelve-
>>>> dimensional psychophysical theory,å the Higgs mechanism is
>>>> coterminous with wavefunction collapse by the "observer" -- and it
>>>> is this that creates time-irreversibilit y and so mass (i.e. a la
>>>> Penrose's theory).
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, consciousness emanates from 0 (in the "observer"
>>>> mode of the psychophysical seventh-dimension via the Higgs boson)
>>>> and collapes the wavefunction on strings (in the opposite first-
>>>> dimension) . Interestingly the Higgs is a spin 0 particle (that
>>>> can be imagined as a sphere which looks the sameå no matter what
>>>> direction it is turned in). The idea is that it would be the said
>>>> wavefunction collapseå that creates the group SU(2) isomorphic to
>>>> the group of quaternions of absolute value 1å (quaternions being a
>>>> key component in a 12-D torus).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seen from its own standpoint, then, it is this 1 that becomes
>>>> the 100% quantum of action in the psychophysical first-dimension.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mention all this because your being on the Mind-Brainå list
>>>> suggests you're interested in marrying cosmology and
>>>> consciousness. (And I imagine it's still not occurred to many
>>>> mathematical physicistså that the fact that number cannot be
>>>> found anywhere in the universe or in the mind-brain points to it
>>>> probably existing at the *psycho-physical* interface between
>>>> energy and matter. IOW: we can interact with number precisely
>>>> because, like number,å we too possess psychophysical Being and
>>>> Becoming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask me another ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BEB.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>


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