ABC theory - confirmatory dialog with physicist
Author Leon Maurer:)
I thought this confirmation of my ABC model by an
accredited physicist might be of interest. (The typographical error at
the end of my most recent letter is actually a Freudian slip that now
strikes me as being hilariously funny. LM)
Begin forwarded message:
From: yanniru@aim.com
Date: May 19, 2008 5:38:41 AM EDT
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience
Reply-To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
LM asks:
How can string theory determine anything about an eternal "absolute space" (underlying all configuration space) that has no metric?
JC answers: Absolute space has no metric because it is a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate)
Visible space does not come first. Absolute space in a sense is pre-existing. Absolute space is where gravity exists. That's how gravity can escape a black h***. Have you ever thought about that paradox: If light cannot escape a black h***, how can gravity escape a black h*** because gravity waves travel at the speed of light? But if gravity could not escape a black h***, it could not be a black h***. That is the paradox. The solution is absolute space. Gravity escapes black holes through absolute space.
The quantum physicists at Penn State are just beginning to solve that problem although they think of it as where the information in the black h*** went. It obviously went into absolute space- but they are not quite there yet. Here is what they said:
"Hawking's analysis suggested that at the end of a black h***'s life, even after it has completely evaporated away, a singularity--or a final edge to space-time--is left behind, and this singularity serves as a sink for unrecoverable information."
“But Ashtekar and his collaborators, Victor Taveras, a graduate student in the Penn State Department of Physics, and Madhavan Varadarajan, a professor at the Raman Research Institute in India, suggest that singularities do not exist in the real world. Information only appears to be lost because we have been looking at a restricted part of the true quantum mechanical space-time," said Varadarajan. "Once you consider quantum gravity, then space-time becomes much larger and there is room for information to reappear in the distant future on the other side of what was first thought to be the end of space-time."
Leon, you may recall that I already presented this comment to you as proof that there are no singularities in what you call visible spacetime. Well on further consideration of their math findings they are coming to realize that there is more to spacetime than visible spacetime. But they still do not seem to realize that there is an absolute spacetime in which our visible spacetime is embedded..
I came to the conclusion that there is an absolute spacetime by combining string phenomenology, which says that there are extra (large) dimensions that contain only gravity, with Itzhak Bars Two Time Physics. The obvious conclusion is that the visible 4D spacetime of our universe is embedded in a larger 4D spacetime of absolute spacetime that is a BEC and therefore not metric. Furthermore I can, using numerology, not quantum gravity math that the Penn State physicists must use, derive absolute spacetime from either 26d or 32d string theory. It is not clear in my mind whether the foundation of reality is 26d or 32d, but that is beside the point.
Let's suppose its 32d. Then at some primordial time, long before our big bang formed our universe, 16d of the 32d split off to form the absolute spacetime, leaving 16d to form all subsequent universes. In the big bang 12d compactify down to the Planck scale allowing 4D to expand. So far, quantum physicists only consider that the big bang consisted of 10d and 6d compactified as 4D expanded.
Now I think the big bang came from a black h*** in a mother universe and the Penn State physicists seem to be heading towards the same conclusion. Therefore I suggest the absolute space probably also came from a black h***, but a primordial black h*** containing 32 dimensions.
So this all supports your insight that consciousness is primary or primordial if we just hypothesize that consciousness is a BEC. The primordial BEC black h*** is then the original consciousness of what most would call god (I prefer to call it nature- nature having consciousness and personality). Then long ago in absolute time, 16d of the 32d split off and 12d compactified to create gravity as 4D expanded into absolute spacetime, which being a BEC is still contains the consciousness of nature. The other 16d became a black h*** in absolute space and it subsequently in absolute time expanded via a series of big bangs into all the universes that have ever existed. The black holes in our universe may be creating baby universes right now. That is where the information goes.
So Leon, like you, I am just a layman when it comes to string theory and quantum gravity. But also like you I have insight and not being confined by mathematics, but using string numerology, I can come to conclusions way ahead of quantum gravity physicists. However, I will never know if I am correct until the quantum gravity physicists come to the same conclusions, as they seem to be doing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurer
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience
On May 18, 2008, at 5/18/081:14 AM, Leon Maurer wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 5/13/085:59 AM, yanniru@aim.com wrote:
Leon asks:
P.S. If you are what you say you are -- how about telling us your theory of what was the nature and condition of Absolute empty space before the spacetime continuum appeared at the big bang? Then tell us why and how it happened? And, after that, let us know what happened to that Absolute space (Aether) that gave it birth, and where did it go? Also, tell is where and how the energy of the entire universe was stored prior to the big bang?
JC answers:
Leon, I have already told you exactly how absolute space can come out of string theory
and what its constituents are as well as where it came from
and how sufficient phase space gets packed for a whole new universe (energy not needed).
But you just ignored my remarks.
That still doesn't answer my questions... Since I haven't the faintest idea of what you supposedly told me about all that space coming out of string theory. How can string theory determine anything about an eternal "absolute space" (underlying all configuration space) that has no metric? Or is your absolute space different from mine?
All I get from your remarks are that visible metric spacetime comes first, and that it creates phase space, which then compacts into "absolute space" that is part of some kind of "megaspace". There's no logical linkages or rational geometrically progressive connection between any of it, as far as I can see. Even if there is a mathematical basis behind such speculations, I can't see how its symbolism explains the actual nature of reality, or explains the absolute spatial basis of all the laws of nature -- which would have to be inherent in its primal spinergy or abstract motion.
My ABC model, on the other hand, is based on the ubiquitous, eternal, and unchangeable Absolute space that has no metric attributes, and is the rootless root of all *objective* fractally involved multidimensional hyperspace and metric spacetime (and the matter-energy forms derived from it) -- in addition to being the ubiquitous source of *subjective* consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.).
The physical universe then is completely contained, energetically and informationally, in the infinite spin momentum (spinergy) of the absolute space -- which remains forever in the exact center of the ZPE located everywhere in the Planck vacuum of metric spacetime -- whose circumference is the gravitational field upon which all forms of matter-energy are generated and empowered by their localized zero-point spin momenta energy (spinergy) surrounding their singularities -- to appear and disappear periodically (at different time cycles depending on their relative size, density or total energetics). As I said before, those localized singularities of Absolute Space have to be outside of and separate from all metric space and time. And, all zero-point fields, everywhere, have to be analogous to the fractal involved fields of cosmogenesis -- in order to account for the holographic nature of all spatial forms of matter, as well as the ubiquitousness and non locality of consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.)
Thus, the laws of conservation, symmetry, electrodynamics and thermodynamics, are fully obeyed, while the total space or the universe itself is nether created nor destroyed during the seemingly endless days and nights of its life -- to be poetic.
Just because you make a remark about something doesn't mean that you have explained it. So, I still am waiting for you to explain (so that everyone interested in this thread can understand it) where and how the total energy of the universe is stored prior to the "big bang" (that the cosmologists talk about)... (Although I'm not so sure that THAT "Big Bang" is not the total accumulation of a lot of smaller big bangs over a vast but finite period of time, since the beginning of this day in the life of cosmos.)
IOW, as I see it, the universe has only a relative phenomenal existence, periodically, in the vast, and eternal sea of Absolute Space... Which is the source of infinite universes -- that never cease to be -- whether manifest or non-manifest.
So, because this universe and its major constructs such as galaxies, stars, etc., may come in and out of phenomenal existence periodically -- while successively passing through all the prior hyperspace fields between their noumenal spinergy and phenomenal spatial states -- how can any empirical scientific mathematics deal with their non metric state of pre- or post-existence on any hyperspatial or metric spatial field?
In addition, you haven't even described what you mean by "phase space" as distinguished from "absolute space" or metric "spacetime." Also, you never have explained HOW the "'phase space' gets packed" -- let alone where it came from initially or what is the nature of its geometry. Your vagueness makes me wonder if you are so wrapped up in your physics jargon and symbolic mathematics derived by others -- that you can no longer explain your theory logically to a non mathematician or non physicist -- as simply as Einstein could explain relativity theory in plain English so a 12 year old could understand it. In my view, a picture is worth a thousand words or mathematical equations... Consequently, I see nothing to add to my short outline and illustrations of the ABC model at:
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
So, either answer my questions, or come up with an alternative theory that can answer all the questions of consciousness and matter that ABC can... Or stop nit picking my words (attempting to explain the ABC model) out of context. My suggestion is, if you have a theory of cosmogenesis that includes consciousness, and is too long or complex for this list, that you post it online where anyone interested can access it.
Nest wishes,
Leon Maurer
I know you think you "told" me... But I don't remember your proving that "absolute space"-- which eternally exists, ubiquitously, as the sole underlying cause, support, and container of all "phase space" (as well as our physical metric spacetime continuum) -- is *created* by (i.e., "comes from") string theory.
As I see it, string theory is an extension of the Kaluza-Klein theory -- which is based on the fundamental, spinergy-generated, fractal involutional topological geometry, that is clearly and logically explained by my ABC field hypothesis. Thus, string theory "comes out" of the fundamental spinergy of Absolute space that is the root of its fractal geometry, not vice versa. I, also, don't see that you have proven, with your 26-d SUSY theory, that absolute space "gets packed," or is subsequent to phase space (which I assume refers to the analogous ZPE hyper-space fields on the lowest order physical level of the ABC model of cosmogenesis). See:
http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-col_3.jpg
Apparently, the 4th world aspect of overall "total space" is as far down into the primal beginning of the cosmos that any theories of physics can go... And any "packing" of phase space to create a whole new universe, can only occur on that physical level -- without in any way affecting the primal cosmogenesis originating out of the Absolute Space... Which space is equivalent to the Aether-based "total space" of Einstein. Incidentally, that is why, there can never be a mathematical proof of the unity of forces -- since gravity is a property of that Absolute Space -- which is forever out of the reach of physical science, either mathematically or observationally. However, as far as I'm concerned, its eternal existence is a logical imperative.
As for no energy being needed... That, makes no sense -- since the total energy of the physical space is packed into its ZP Spinergy (or its metric (apparent) "singularity" between each cyclic "bounce" that recreates the whole universe after its entropy is maxed out and all matter-energy forms revert back to their initial spinergy in the false vacuum of physical spacetime. This cyclic nature, however, of the material universe -- which, incidentally, the Hindu-Buddhists call the "day of Brahma" -- has no relation to the the initial cosmogenesis, or Life of Brahma, or to the Absolute Space that gave it birth, which they call "Parabrahm."
It's not that I have ignored your "remarks" -- but that, I don't think your conclusions, based on reductive mathematics limited to *physical space," is relevant to the conclusions reached through the pure geometry of the symmetric phase space that had to come *before* the breaking of symmetry on the fourth lowest frequency energy order exposed the physical-material spacetime -- that is the subject of such scientific mathematics... Which, even as far as it goes, cannot be falsified, anyway, and doesn't prove anything about primal beginnings of the initial hyperspace Cosmos.
If Andrew were to answer all those questions for you, I bet you would just ignore him as well.
And BTW absolute space is space; it is not aether. Einstein was wrong on that score.
But you ignored my refutation of Einstein as well.
Since I'm sure he can't answer any of them -- since his cosmology only goes so far as the metric physical space -- I don't think I will have any problem. As for your refutation of Einstein and his Aether... I have good reason to ignore it, since your theory can't go any deeper into fundamental metaphysical reality that his can. I'm afraid that my Absolute Space and the Aether of Einstein (As he later seemed to define it, not as the medium of light, but as the infinitely energetic "physical" source of total space that remains forever ubiquitously undiminishable and outside of all time and metric space) -- are identical, as far as I'm concerned.
You are just too obstinate to ever accept anybody else's derivations even when they support your insight.
What's the matter? You refuse to share credit?
Obstinacy has nothing to do with it. Even though you think they support my insight (which is already well supported by its topological fractal geometry) -- your string theory derivations, that deal only with the 4th physical-material level of spacetime (even if they have a metaphysical component) -- do not go deep enough to support the entire pre-physical, fractal involution of the initial gravitational fields of cosmogenesis, or explain the pre-cosmic origin of consciousness and its informational connections with mind, memory, brain-body, senses.
As for sharing credit... When some physicist can come up with the mathematical proof of the ABC model of cosmogenesis, along with its theory of consciousness, PCAR, and unified fields and forces it underlies -- I will have no problem sharing the Nobel prize with him. ;-)
BTW Andrew is expert at what happens after the big bang. Any claims for before the big bang are hypothetical as are mine and yours.
Granted, and good for him... But I never claimed the ABC was anything more than a hypothesis based on the reverse engineering of the spacetime continuum as described by GRT and its unrenormalized mathematics. My assumption is that the true Aether or Absolute space is entirely beyond the scope of mathematical physics -- since its basic equation is zero = infinity. So, I doubt if any physicist, under the present paradigm of physics, will ever come up with a true unified field theory of everything (including consciousness).
So, I'll keep sticking with the ABC model, and let the chips fall where they may. And good luck to the both of you and your respective mathematical theories of physical cosmological space.
Leon Maurer
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurer
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 2:11 am
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience
On May 12, 2008, at 5/12/0810:19 PM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:
There is no aether
Get with it.
Once again, you are peddling NONSENSE to a cosmologist in his research area.
Andrew Beckwith, PhD
LM: And once again you are showing your lack of scientific integrity by making a hubristic negative assertion to a scientific assumption, for which you have no evidence except your own self proclaimed expertise. Frankly, judging by your previous remarks in this forum, I don't believe you are the authority you claim to be. (Although, I have looked over some of your academic output and see nothing in it that proves anything about primal beginnings or initial conditions relevant to consciousness study or neuroscience.)
If you want to argue against the Aether hypothesis, either come up with some contrary cosmological evidence, or a rational argument that proves Einstein in his 1920 Leydon lecture on the Aether, was wrong.
As it is, up until now, you have only proved that your scientific credentials prove nothing (along with its symbolic mathematics) about the nature of fundamental (pre cosmic) reality, post cosmic causative conditions, unification of fields, etc., or has any relevance to the discussions in this forum.
So, get with it yourself, and either come up with some credible rational or scientific evidence for your denials, or get off your high horse.
Leon Maurer
P.S. If you are what you say you are -- how about telling us your theory of what was the nature and condition of Absolute empty space before the spacetime continuum appeared at the big bang? Then tell us why and how it happened? And, after that, let us know what happened to that Absolute space (Aether) that gave it birth, and where did it go? Also, tell is where and how the energy of the entire universe was stored prior to the big bang? And, if you want to stick your nose into a consciousness study forum, how about adding some information of where the subjective qualities of consciousness came from, and how our thoughts and intentions can cause energy to flow, and do work to move matter precisely as we will it? We wait with bated breath.
Begin forwarded message:
From: yanniru@aim.com
Date: May 19, 2008 5:38:41 AM EDT
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience
Reply-To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
LM asks:
How can string theory determine anything about an eternal "absolute space" (underlying all configuration space) that has no metric?
JC answers: Absolute space has no metric because it is a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate)
Visible space does not come first. Absolute space in a sense is pre-existing. Absolute space is where gravity exists. That's how gravity can escape a black h***. Have you ever thought about that paradox: If light cannot escape a black h***, how can gravity escape a black h*** because gravity waves travel at the speed of light? But if gravity could not escape a black h***, it could not be a black h***. That is the paradox. The solution is absolute space. Gravity escapes black holes through absolute space.
The quantum physicists at Penn State are just beginning to solve that problem although they think of it as where the information in the black h*** went. It obviously went into absolute space- but they are not quite there yet. Here is what they said:
"Hawking's analysis suggested that at the end of a black h***'s life, even after it has completely evaporated away, a singularity--or a final edge to space-time--is left behind, and this singularity serves as a sink for unrecoverable information."
“But Ashtekar and his collaborators, Victor Taveras, a graduate student in the Penn State Department of Physics, and Madhavan Varadarajan, a professor at the Raman Research Institute in India, suggest that singularities do not exist in the real world. Information only appears to be lost because we have been looking at a restricted part of the true quantum mechanical space-time," said Varadarajan. "Once you consider quantum gravity, then space-time becomes much larger and there is room for information to reappear in the distant future on the other side of what was first thought to be the end of space-time."
Leon, you may recall that I already presented this comment to you as proof that there are no singularities in what you call visible spacetime. Well on further consideration of their math findings they are coming to realize that there is more to spacetime than visible spacetime. But they still do not seem to realize that there is an absolute spacetime in which our visible spacetime is embedded..
I came to the conclusion that there is an absolute spacetime by combining string phenomenology, which says that there are extra (large) dimensions that contain only gravity, with Itzhak Bars Two Time Physics. The obvious conclusion is that the visible 4D spacetime of our universe is embedded in a larger 4D spacetime of absolute spacetime that is a BEC and therefore not metric. Furthermore I can, using numerology, not quantum gravity math that the Penn State physicists must use, derive absolute spacetime from either 26d or 32d string theory. It is not clear in my mind whether the foundation of reality is 26d or 32d, but that is beside the point.
Let's suppose its 32d. Then at some primordial time, long before our big bang formed our universe, 16d of the 32d split off to form the absolute spacetime, leaving 16d to form all subsequent universes. In the big bang 12d compactify down to the Planck scale allowing 4D to expand. So far, quantum physicists only consider that the big bang consisted of 10d and 6d compactified as 4D expanded.
Now I think the big bang came from a black h*** in a mother universe and the Penn State physicists seem to be heading towards the same conclusion. Therefore I suggest the absolute space probably also came from a black h***, but a primordial black h*** containing 32 dimensions.
So this all supports your insight that consciousness is primary or primordial if we just hypothesize that consciousness is a BEC. The primordial BEC black h*** is then the original consciousness of what most would call god (I prefer to call it nature- nature having consciousness and personality). Then long ago in absolute time, 16d of the 32d split off and 12d compactified to create gravity as 4D expanded into absolute spacetime, which being a BEC is still contains the consciousness of nature. The other 16d became a black h*** in absolute space and it subsequently in absolute time expanded via a series of big bangs into all the universes that have ever existed. The black holes in our universe may be creating baby universes right now. That is where the information goes.
So Leon, like you, I am just a layman when it comes to string theory and quantum gravity. But also like you I have insight and not being confined by mathematics, but using string numerology, I can come to conclusions way ahead of quantum gravity physicists. However, I will never know if I am correct until the quantum gravity physicists come to the same conclusions, as they seem to be doing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurer
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience
On May 18, 2008, at 5/18/081:14 AM, Leon Maurer wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 5/13/085:59 AM, yanniru@aim.com wrote:
Leon asks:
P.S. If you are what you say you are -- how about telling us your theory of what was the nature and condition of Absolute empty space before the spacetime continuum appeared at the big bang? Then tell us why and how it happened? And, after that, let us know what happened to that Absolute space (Aether) that gave it birth, and where did it go? Also, tell is where and how the energy of the entire universe was stored prior to the big bang?
JC answers:
Leon, I have already told you exactly how absolute space can come out of string theory
and what its constituents are as well as where it came from
and how sufficient phase space gets packed for a whole new universe (energy not needed).
But you just ignored my remarks.
That still doesn't answer my questions... Since I haven't the faintest idea of what you supposedly told me about all that space coming out of string theory. How can string theory determine anything about an eternal "absolute space" (underlying all configuration space) that has no metric? Or is your absolute space different from mine?
All I get from your remarks are that visible metric spacetime comes first, and that it creates phase space, which then compacts into "absolute space" that is part of some kind of "megaspace". There's no logical linkages or rational geometrically progressive connection between any of it, as far as I can see. Even if there is a mathematical basis behind such speculations, I can't see how its symbolism explains the actual nature of reality, or explains the absolute spatial basis of all the laws of nature -- which would have to be inherent in its primal spinergy or abstract motion.
My ABC model, on the other hand, is based on the ubiquitous, eternal, and unchangeable Absolute space that has no metric attributes, and is the rootless root of all *objective* fractally involved multidimensional hyperspace and metric spacetime (and the matter-energy forms derived from it) -- in addition to being the ubiquitous source of *subjective* consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.).
The physical universe then is completely contained, energetically and informationally, in the infinite spin momentum (spinergy) of the absolute space -- which remains forever in the exact center of the ZPE located everywhere in the Planck vacuum of metric spacetime -- whose circumference is the gravitational field upon which all forms of matter-energy are generated and empowered by their localized zero-point spin momenta energy (spinergy) surrounding their singularities -- to appear and disappear periodically (at different time cycles depending on their relative size, density or total energetics). As I said before, those localized singularities of Absolute Space have to be outside of and separate from all metric space and time. And, all zero-point fields, everywhere, have to be analogous to the fractal involved fields of cosmogenesis -- in order to account for the holographic nature of all spatial forms of matter, as well as the ubiquitousness and non locality of consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.)
Thus, the laws of conservation, symmetry, electrodynamics and thermodynamics, are fully obeyed, while the total space or the universe itself is nether created nor destroyed during the seemingly endless days and nights of its life -- to be poetic.
Just because you make a remark about something doesn't mean that you have explained it. So, I still am waiting for you to explain (so that everyone interested in this thread can understand it) where and how the total energy of the universe is stored prior to the "big bang" (that the cosmologists talk about)... (Although I'm not so sure that THAT "Big Bang" is not the total accumulation of a lot of smaller big bangs over a vast but finite period of time, since the beginning of this day in the life of cosmos.)
IOW, as I see it, the universe has only a relative phenomenal existence, periodically, in the vast, and eternal sea of Absolute Space... Which is the source of infinite universes -- that never cease to be -- whether manifest or non-manifest.
So, because this universe and its major constructs such as galaxies, stars, etc., may come in and out of phenomenal existence periodically -- while successively passing through all the prior hyperspace fields between their noumenal spinergy and phenomenal spatial states -- how can any empirical scientific mathematics deal with their non metric state of pre- or post-existence on any hyperspatial or metric spatial field?
In addition, you haven't even described what you mean by "phase space" as distinguished from "absolute space" or metric "spacetime." Also, you never have explained HOW the "'phase space' gets packed" -- let alone where it came from initially or what is the nature of its geometry. Your vagueness makes me wonder if you are so wrapped up in your physics jargon and symbolic mathematics derived by others -- that you can no longer explain your theory logically to a non mathematician or non physicist -- as simply as Einstein could explain relativity theory in plain English so a 12 year old could understand it. In my view, a picture is worth a thousand words or mathematical equations... Consequently, I see nothing to add to my short outline and illustrations of the ABC model at:
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
So, either answer my questions, or come up with an alternative theory that can answer all the questions of consciousness and matter that ABC can... Or stop nit picking my words (attempting to explain the ABC model) out of context. My suggestion is, if you have a theory of cosmogenesis that includes consciousness, and is too long or complex for this list, that you post it online where anyone interested can access it.
Nest wishes,
Leon Maurer
I know you think you "told" me... But I don't remember your proving that "absolute space"-- which eternally exists, ubiquitously, as the sole underlying cause, support, and container of all "phase space" (as well as our physical metric spacetime continuum) -- is *created* by (i.e., "comes from") string theory.
As I see it, string theory is an extension of the Kaluza-Klein theory -- which is based on the fundamental, spinergy-generated, fractal involutional topological geometry, that is clearly and logically explained by my ABC field hypothesis. Thus, string theory "comes out" of the fundamental spinergy of Absolute space that is the root of its fractal geometry, not vice versa. I, also, don't see that you have proven, with your 26-d SUSY theory, that absolute space "gets packed," or is subsequent to phase space (which I assume refers to the analogous ZPE hyper-space fields on the lowest order physical level of the ABC model of cosmogenesis). See:
http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-col_3.jpg
Apparently, the 4th world aspect of overall "total space" is as far down into the primal beginning of the cosmos that any theories of physics can go... And any "packing" of phase space to create a whole new universe, can only occur on that physical level -- without in any way affecting the primal cosmogenesis originating out of the Absolute Space... Which space is equivalent to the Aether-based "total space" of Einstein. Incidentally, that is why, there can never be a mathematical proof of the unity of forces -- since gravity is a property of that Absolute Space -- which is forever out of the reach of physical science, either mathematically or observationally. However, as far as I'm concerned, its eternal existence is a logical imperative.
As for no energy being needed... That, makes no sense -- since the total energy of the physical space is packed into its ZP Spinergy (or its metric (apparent) "singularity" between each cyclic "bounce" that recreates the whole universe after its entropy is maxed out and all matter-energy forms revert back to their initial spinergy in the false vacuum of physical spacetime. This cyclic nature, however, of the material universe -- which, incidentally, the Hindu-Buddhists call the "day of Brahma" -- has no relation to the the initial cosmogenesis, or Life of Brahma, or to the Absolute Space that gave it birth, which they call "Parabrahm."
It's not that I have ignored your "remarks" -- but that, I don't think your conclusions, based on reductive mathematics limited to *physical space," is relevant to the conclusions reached through the pure geometry of the symmetric phase space that had to come *before* the breaking of symmetry on the fourth lowest frequency energy order exposed the physical-material spacetime -- that is the subject of such scientific mathematics... Which, even as far as it goes, cannot be falsified, anyway, and doesn't prove anything about primal beginnings of the initial hyperspace Cosmos.
If Andrew were to answer all those questions for you, I bet you would just ignore him as well.
And BTW absolute space is space; it is not aether. Einstein was wrong on that score.
But you ignored my refutation of Einstein as well.
Since I'm sure he can't answer any of them -- since his cosmology only goes so far as the metric physical space -- I don't think I will have any problem. As for your refutation of Einstein and his Aether... I have good reason to ignore it, since your theory can't go any deeper into fundamental metaphysical reality that his can. I'm afraid that my Absolute Space and the Aether of Einstein (As he later seemed to define it, not as the medium of light, but as the infinitely energetic "physical" source of total space that remains forever ubiquitously undiminishable and outside of all time and metric space) -- are identical, as far as I'm concerned.
You are just too obstinate to ever accept anybody else's derivations even when they support your insight.
What's the matter? You refuse to share credit?
Obstinacy has nothing to do with it. Even though you think they support my insight (which is already well supported by its topological fractal geometry) -- your string theory derivations, that deal only with the 4th physical-material level of spacetime (even if they have a metaphysical component) -- do not go deep enough to support the entire pre-physical, fractal involution of the initial gravitational fields of cosmogenesis, or explain the pre-cosmic origin of consciousness and its informational connections with mind, memory, brain-body, senses.
As for sharing credit... When some physicist can come up with the mathematical proof of the ABC model of cosmogenesis, along with its theory of consciousness, PCAR, and unified fields and forces it underlies -- I will have no problem sharing the Nobel prize with him. ;-)
BTW Andrew is expert at what happens after the big bang. Any claims for before the big bang are hypothetical as are mine and yours.
Granted, and good for him... But I never claimed the ABC was anything more than a hypothesis based on the reverse engineering of the spacetime continuum as described by GRT and its unrenormalized mathematics. My assumption is that the true Aether or Absolute space is entirely beyond the scope of mathematical physics -- since its basic equation is zero = infinity. So, I doubt if any physicist, under the present paradigm of physics, will ever come up with a true unified field theory of everything (including consciousness).
So, I'll keep sticking with the ABC model, and let the chips fall where they may. And good luck to the both of you and your respective mathematical theories of physical cosmological space.
Leon Maurer
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Maurer
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 2:11 am
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience
On May 12, 2008, at 5/12/0810:19 PM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:
There is no aether
Get with it.
Once again, you are peddling NONSENSE to a cosmologist in his research area.
Andrew Beckwith, PhD
LM: And once again you are showing your lack of scientific integrity by making a hubristic negative assertion to a scientific assumption, for which you have no evidence except your own self proclaimed expertise. Frankly, judging by your previous remarks in this forum, I don't believe you are the authority you claim to be. (Although, I have looked over some of your academic output and see nothing in it that proves anything about primal beginnings or initial conditions relevant to consciousness study or neuroscience.)
If you want to argue against the Aether hypothesis, either come up with some contrary cosmological evidence, or a rational argument that proves Einstein in his 1920 Leydon lecture on the Aether, was wrong.
As it is, up until now, you have only proved that your scientific credentials prove nothing (along with its symbolic mathematics) about the nature of fundamental (pre cosmic) reality, post cosmic causative conditions, unification of fields, etc., or has any relevance to the discussions in this forum.
So, get with it yourself, and either come up with some credible rational or scientific evidence for your denials, or get off your high horse.
Leon Maurer
P.S. If you are what you say you are -- how about telling us your theory of what was the nature and condition of Absolute empty space before the spacetime continuum appeared at the big bang? Then tell us why and how it happened? And, after that, let us know what happened to that Absolute space (Aether) that gave it birth, and where did it go? Also, tell is where and how the energy of the entire universe was stored prior to the big bang? And, if you want to stick your nose into a consciousness study forum, how about adding some information of where the subjective qualities of consciousness came from, and how our thoughts and intentions can cause energy to flow, and do work to move matter precisely as we will it? We wait with bated breath.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz