[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, Thinking, Mind, Brain

May 10, 2006 06:42 PM
by leonmaurer

I suppose I'm entitled to answer this generally negative third person 
commentary about me and my ideas, in the first person. :-)   My responses below. LM

In a message dated 5/4/06 2:31:46 AM, writes:

> One of the problems in trying to understand Leon's ABC theory is that its 
> " propositions, conclusions, and other elements" have seemingly never been 
> fully written out. The best source I have found is an article that describes his 
> fundamental assumptions plus brief remarks on the theory that comes from 
> these assumptions.  Here is the link:
> DESC=XXXtwtw200203%20Issue,
>  and here are the paragraphs outlining his assumptions:
> "Consider the assumption that matter and energy generate from nothing. 
> Causally, this position is logically fallacious. Some argue it without explaining 
> how it works. Mathematics does not decide the nature of universal truth. 
> That is decided by the universe itself. As it is, the universe allows us to 
> discover the mathematics that describes it."
> "All energy derives from motion. Such motion cannot come from non-motion 
> (thezero-point-instant alone). The primal zero-point must accompany a 
> surrounding abstract "angular motion." This can only be an inherent attribute, the 
> spinning of the zero point itself. Since there is no friction or resistance of 
> primal space to slow such spin motion, its angular velocity and frequency would 
> potentially be infinite, as would be its information carrying capacity. 
> Thus, its energy (as angular momentum) would also be infinite."
> "I call this primal abstract angular motional energy circling 
> the zero-point,"spinergy." It is the root of cycles, and of all subsequent energies linked 
> to all phenomenal fields, from spiritual and mental energy-substance to 
> physical mass-energy (ref: E=MC^2)."
> OK. His basic premise that 'all energy comes from motion' is incorrect. 
> Ironically he provides the proof in that last paragraph, e.g., E=MC^2. This is 
> the equation of the potential energy of a mass M at rest, the so-called rest 
> mass energy. 
There is no such a thing as a mass at rest, since according to E=MC^2, mass 
is energy, and energy is nothing more than "space in motion" as Einstein 
pointed out.   Otherwise, how could the velocity of light, as distance divided by 
time, be a factor in determining the potential energy of the imaginary mass at 
rest (meaning only that it is not in relative linear motion).   Besides, there 
cannot be anything even equivalent to a "mass truly at rest", since everything 
in the universe is fundamentally composed of vibrations of energy, and even a 
resting mass is moving relative to its own zero-point center -- not to 
mention, relative to the solar or galactic center.   Therefore, no scientific 
equation can explain the real nature of mass or energy... Since, such equations 
cannot delineate causes or effects of the mass it is equating with equally 
undefined energy -- which doesn't "come from motion" but IS nothing but the motion of 
space itself.   
> There are scientific theories of the big bang where energy comes from 
> 'nothing' and the energy balances gravitational energy due to the expansion of the 
> universe. But I prefer Smolin's cosmology where the universe expands from a 
> black hole center, which in General Relativity is singular, as it comes 
> closest to what Blavatsky describes in the Secret Doctrine.
And, that is almost close to what I propose in the ABC model, when I say that 
this universe (among an infinite number of others) radiates and expands from 
the infinite abstract motion or "spinergy" on three of its infinite potential 
axes surrounding the absolute zero-point of pure spirit or consciousness ... 
Together, constituting the Cosmic "Singularity" -- which is equivalent to 
Blavatsky's "Laya Point" -- out of which every fractally involved coenergetic 
field, along with every "construct" in the universe on their surfaces from Galaxies 
to particles, arises like "wheels within wheels" (or bubbles within bubbles 
as ABC sees it).   

How much closer can Smolen's cosmology get to what Blavatsky describes in the 
Secret doctrine than that?   Especially, since his model has no relationship 
to consciousness or the hyperspace fields that link it to physical matter.   
Without that, his theory is as empty as ALL strictly scientific cosmologies.   
But, you are right when you don't accept any theory that proposes that energy 
comes from nothing.   Nothing comes from nothing.   ABC theory's "spinergy," 
however, is the rootless root of everything.   Such so called "scientific 
theories," proposing that "nothing" nonsense are as empty as the heads of the 
scientists who conjure them up out of contrived mathematics that has no relation to 
actual reality -- or anything for that matter. (pun intended:-)

> As I point out his fundamental assumption is flawed. But then he develops a 
> new entity, infinite spinergy and moreover goes on to claim that it exists 
> everywhere, at least in all human beings. Well, the angular momentum of the 
> black hole is far from infinite, and the singularity at its center is 
> supermassive, quite far from being nothing, and in Smolin's cosmology the GR 
> singularity ceases to exist once the baby universe is spawned from the black hole. The 
> original edition of Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' has a nice 
> picture of such creation. 
First, where's the flaw?   Or, is it just in the fact that it doesn't agree 
with conventional scientific presumptions based on materialism?   But, then 
Smolen's cosmology is as unfalsifiable as mine is... So, what does all that 
prove?   Besides "supermassive" implies near infinite mass-energy, and that is 
still limited only by that portion of the infinitely greater spinergy that 
represents this particular universe.   According to Cantor, there can be an infinite 
set of infinities.   And, I don't think that fundamental or Absolute space 
conforms to any of the limited mathematics pertaining to metric or configuration 
space.   Thus, Krishna is right as quoted by Blavatsky when she says he says, 
"I form this entire world with one small part of myself, yet remain separate" 
(i.e., undiminished -- since "he/she" symbolically represents the ultimate 
spinergy of the Absolute pre cosmic "singularity," that is infinitely infinite as 
well as omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent.)   

In addition, the ABC model, does not say that the "singularity" in the black 
hole of a galaxy or that of a smaller mass collapse of a neutron star, is e
quivalent to the black hole out of which the entire universe appeared.   Because, 
even that singularity is only a finite part (the angular momentum or spinergy 
circling around only three axes) of the ultimate, infinitely divisible 
"Spinergy" or G-force of Absolute Space.   

Accordingly, it should be understood, that the only "emptiness" or "nothing" 
spoken of by ABC, is in the zero-point center of that pre cosmic, cosmic or 
any black hole spinergy -- representing the static zero-point of the unknown 
rootless root of Absolute space itself -- of which all those black holes are only 
smaller infinitely divisible parts of its infinite spinergy.   Therefore, the 
only place a black hole has finite energy is between that zero-point center 
and the "event barrier" defining the diameter of the black hole itself at a 
particular, yet immeasurable distance from that point (and its dimensionless 
spinergy).   I don't think even Hawkings wouldn't tentatively agree to that. :-)
> Infinities and singularities do not actually happen in nature, contrary to 
> what Leon says in the above paragraphs. But it is convenient to say the 
> center of the black hole is singular. The gravitational field of a black hole is 
> spherical and rotating (consistent with Blavatsky, even though she certainly 
> never heard of a black hole). I presume that she was familiar with the Koran 
> where black holes are describedin rather vague terms without using that word. 
> Probably both Blavatsky and the Koran had the same source, the teachings of 
> the ancients, and I acceptits truth. But interpretation in modern scientific 
> terms is required.
Why?   What does science actually know about what actually happens in overall 
nature?   Do they consider the true nature of the forces between the particle 
and the zero-point?   So, that statement is nothing more than a philosophical 
assertion that is entirely groundless.   Besides, science can only explain 
nature mathematically, and that mathematics is entirely limited to the physical 
material universe, and has no relationship with and cannot explain any of the 
affective and effective phenomena of consciousness (i.e., awareness, will, 
mind, memory, perception, etc.) which play integral roles in the cosmology and 
ontology of the entire Cosmos as well as all the material forms and forces 
within it.   If the ancient truths are to be accepted, they have to be related to 
the esoteric mathematical multidimensional geometry's, topologies and analogous 
and corresponding electrodynamics between the absolute zero-point  and 
infinity that the ABC theory (as well as relativity in its ultimate simplicity) is 
based on. 
> That is actually what Blavatsky was doing in the Secret Doctrine, 
> correlating the teachings of the ancients with the science of her day. In reading the 
> Secret Doctrine one can see where alot of what she says is also flawed because 
> it was based on the physics available then. That is also what Leon is trying 
> to do using the terminology of modern science. I commend that effort. 
Thank you.   I agree with your assessment of Blavatsky's ignorance of the 
science that came after the classical physics she tried to lean on.   However, 
her fundamental teachings are actually based on what the ancients already knew 
about the metaphysical and relative as well as particulate/wave nature of the 
universe -- which Einstein intuited in his equation of the unity between energy 
and matter, most likely triggered directly from her teachings, since we know 
from various sources that he studied that book before he was out of his teens 
and devised the equation E=MC^2 around that time.   The only trouble today, 
even with that basis, is that modern physics still doesn't tell the whole story 
of actual reality -- which must include consciousness as the fundamental 
driving force behind all the forms of matter as well as the unification of all the 
fields and forces of nature... Something that Einstein must have known, 
judging from his philosophical writings, but which he could never prove using the 
methematics of relativity coupled with quantum physics.   
> But by proposing a new theory he over steps proper interpretation. What 
> should be done at any stage of scientific development is to correlate the 
> 'ancient teachings' with modern science.  
Why?   Why not the other way around -- since modern physics falls far short 
of being a definitive explanation of actual reality?   Besides, I started out 
on this quest for truth, pertaining to the interconnections and mechanisms 
between consciousness (awareness, will) and matter (brain, mind and memory 
fields), as a metaphysician and ontologist, NOT a material scientist.    

My ABC model actually isn't a "new scientific theory" based on the current 
rules of the scientific method -- but is an entirely new paradigm of pure 
scientific philosophy itself.   Therefore, my teacher is not a scientist -- but the 
universe itself.   The only physical science that I do know (besides my 
university engineering and scientific studies) was taught to me by a nuclear 
physicist and Buddhist master metaphysician who left out all the mathematics and 
explained it like Einstein explained relativity, in both graphic and dynamically 
analogous terms... That, even then, couldn't explain the origin and nature of 
consciousness or its coenergetic processes and connections with the physical 

It was only after we devised the ABC model and tested it in mind experiments, 
from both a metaphysical and physical standpoint, that it all began to make 
both logical and reasonable sense.   However, like Einstein, my physicist 
teacher could not find a purely mathematical solution that could marry the two 
extremes of universal reality.   Zero or infinity, as well as infinite 
divisibility just couldn't fit into the equations of particle physics -- that wrongly 
looks upon physical matter and its physical radiation's as being the only 
ultimate reality.
> Now my problem with Leon is not really with his flawed theory. Rather it is 
> with how he has promoted himself and the Secret Doctrine. As stated in other 
> posts, he claims almost all modern science came from that book. Here is an 
> outstanding example ofone such claim written to Richard Feynmann:
> link:
I never claimed any of that that nonsense...   But only that the root 
intuitions of modern science, such as E=mc^2, comes from a deep and concentrated 
study of that book.   The root of all modern sciences still remains in the 
insights of Einstein before he was out of his teens.   But, maybe you're too old or 
square to understand what "Grok" means. :-) As for all the rest of modern 
science, how could they not have been a spin off of the ideas Einstein intuited 
from that book?   Isn't Einstein considered the founder of both relativity and 
quantum physics?   Maybe you should study it and see how many times Blavatsky 
say, "The intuitive student will know exactly what I mean."
> How Did Albert Einstein Intuit (Grok) E=mc2?
> Answer:
> That's easy... He looked it up in The Secret Doctrine. (1)
> It's easy.... to verify that that equation never appeared in the Secret 
> Doctrine. 
Absolutely correct...   But the implication of it did, as you might know if 
you bothered to look for it with a burning desire to find it like Einstein did. 
  BTW, the headline is one of my more subtle Jokes (which you never seem to 
get:-) that I use quite often when talking to theosophists who understand the 
humor of the author of the Secret doctrine... Since anyone really serious about 
her metaphysics has also read some of her letters and the comments of her 
students about her real nature.   Besides, I think the joke is on scientists who 
think Einstein was a genious with far more intelligence than they have (and 
that's why he came up with a radical scientific breakthrough, full blown, that 
they couldn't even imagine, let alone discover).   He actually said, in effect 
"Genius is nothing more that concentrating on a single point of inquiry for a 
long time." I guess he was referring to his insight of E-MC^2 after studying 
the SD with a completly open and curious mind, and how long it took him to gain 
sufficient mathematical and scientific knowledge as an accredited scientist, 
to be able to prove and publish the theory and some of its spin offs (i.e., 
light as a particle-wave, the bending of space, etc.).   Fortunately, he got 
that insight and started that long journey to its proof at around age 15-16... 
And, unfortunately, I didn't finish studying the Secret Doctrine until I was in 
my late 60's. :-(
> Here is an outstanding example of how he promotes himself:
How could that be?   Is this one of your usual ad hominem remarks designed to 
discredit anything I say?   Very tricky.   Fact is, I didn't write that 
piece.   Chris Holmes did... After, as he said, "reading my letters online" -- 
where I never said or even implied anything like you say, without any foundation, 
" he promotes himself."   Guess you can't help libeling those you wish to 
denigrate because they don't follow your politically correct (so called 
"scientific") party line.   
> link:
> Zero Point Origins of Consciousness and Creation
> 7b.  The God Particle of  Leon Maurer 
> - a contemporary Einstein of Mysticism -
> I take it he thinks of himself to be on a par with Einstein.

And, if I do, so what?   It's like comparing a 70 year old with a 16 year 
old... And, based on false information at that.   :-)   You're even funnier than 
I am.   Actually, I may not be in his league as a respected scientist, but my 
insights are pretty much on par with his -- although not yet proven 
scientifically...   But, then, how could it be by me, since I am not a scientist, 
already beyond 80, and when the insight itself is an entirely new paradigm -- which 
necessarily requires an entirely new mathematics not yet taught in the 
colleges of conventional science.   BTW, I was hoping when we first met in 
correspondence that you might be the one to take on that job... But, I guess you've been 
so steeped in conventional science and its mathematics for so long, that you 
couldn't handle the shift to the new level of multidimensional graphical and 
topological thinking required.   
> Actually it's rather easy to correlate much of what is said in the Secret 
> Doctrine with the modern concepts of Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the 
> multiverse if we assume that these three entities can support consciousness. There are 
> good reasons to think so. But that's a different article in a different 
> forum. 
Can't wait to read it...   Since ABC theory also includes those correlations 
-- which I've written about a number of time in letters to the various 
scientific and philosophical forums.   What forum do I have to go to?   Such 
confirmation coming from a legitimate scientist could be a real feather in my cap.   <
'/ :-)>

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
> Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Wed, 3 May 2006 02:06:52 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, 
> Thinking, Mind, Brain
> Richard, 
> I think you have gone far beyond conscience and reason by labeling me an 
> "imposter"for trying to present my reasonable ABC field theory of consciousness 
> and mind in a supposedly fair and open forum -- for the consideration of allt 
> hose professional or amateur scientists and philosophers studying 
> consciousness along with mind and brain... 
> A theory that is offered in all sincerity for whoever might wish to comment, 
> and either agree or disagree, using reasonand logic...  By speaking directly 
> to the propositions, conclusions, and other elements of the theory itself -- 
> without raising personal issues or insults that have nothing to do with my 
> self chosen, unsolicited, unaffiliated,and unpaid theoretical work for the 
> past 30 odd years... Carried out solely for the sake of seeking the truth of 
> cosmogenesis and the interconnections, mechanisms, and dynamics between 
> consciousness (awareness, will), mind and matter...  Something that physical science, 
> caught up in its reductive materialism,had left unstudied and in limbo until 
> about 12-13 years ago, when some imaginative scientists, realizing that they 
> couldn't answer certain fundamental questions of physics without bringing 
> consciousness into their equations, published the professional Journal of 
> Consciousness Studies, Consciousness and Cognition,Psyche, etc.
> Not being an "accredited" scientist or mathematician, my only reason for 
> presenting the ABC theory on these forums is to find learnedand accredited 
> scientists willing to consider it and assist with a possible mathematical solution 
> that could meet the scientific requirements of falsificationand prediction, 
> as well as lend their name and credentials for peer reviewedpublication in 
> professional scientific or philosophical journals.  I know now that you could 
> never be one of those scientists -- who, if they could present the ABC theory 
> scientifically, might be candidates for a Nobel prize-- since this concept, 
> if proven to be valid, can answer all the hard problemsthat current physical 
> science cannot solve on its present path. Somethingthat you refuse to see.
> Perhaps you should read the definition of"imposter" below to understand how 
> you have made a serious gaff in libelingme in public with such an insidious 
> personal "attack," as well as misinterpretingmy statements taken out of 
> context, that may have been of an allegoricalor comparative nature, plus using ad 
> hominem arguments in attempting to justifysuch non sequitur interpretations 
> and irrelevant remarks in contradictionof my ABC theory... That has been often 
> argued pro and con on these forumsusing reasonable and logical ideas and 
> concepts -- whether metaphysical orphysical -- without resort to such unfounded 
> accusations or ad hominem methods.
> Whileconceived of over 30 years ago, this theory has been presented in 
> correspondenceto the major on-line scientific and philosophical forums studying 
> consciousness,mind, brain, and their interrelationships, for at least the past 
> 10-12 years-- with no attempt to hide its sources, collaborations or 
> corroboration's...And, this is the first time any supposedly reputable scientist (if 
> you areone) has used such underhanded methods in indicating a disagreement 
> withsome of its premises, reasoning, or conclusions.  Apropos, I might ask 
> whatdoes imposture (if such is true) have to do with the correctness or 
> incorrectnessof the theory presented on its own merits in such logical and 
> progressivedetail based on reasonable fundamental propositions (that some aspects 
> ofphysical science also appear to corroborate)?  
> Incidentally, I havenever disguised the fact that, after many years of deep 
> study of Blavatsky'sSecret Doctrine -- (from which, and from other sources, I 
> have sufficientevidence to believe, Einstein also did and, consequently, 
> intuited E=mc^2when he was in his teens, long before he became a physicist with 
> enough mathematicalknowledge to eventually prove it) -- I intuited this idea 
> of metaphysics,linked logically with physics, to explain the exact mechanisms 
> of consciousnessand perception and the dynamic connections between 
> awareness-will and matter(without violating any of the fundamental scientific laws) -- 
> that physicalscience, alone, could never explain.  Also, in my long study of 
> this book,I also found many indications presaging many of the later 
> developments ofquantum and string physics.  This, in spite of your unfounded denials 
> basedon supposed research in Blavatsky's work that you could never have 
> carriedout thoroughly in such a short time between our letters. 
> Your attemptsto discredit me as well as my theory using such tactics, and 
> your argumentsbased on out of context statements, that may or may not be 
> correctly interpretedin their dead letter, does not justify your use of libelous 
> statements orthe foul language -- which you have also written in harassing 
> personal letterssent to me privately under the Mind and Brain subject line.  
> Incidentally,only some of those so called "private" letters that were 
> relatively benignwere inadvertently sent back to the list -- since, I have in the 
> past, madeit a habit to send my replies that further clarify my theory to 
> whateverforum is listed in the subject line, as well as to other students of 
> ABCor theosophy who may be interested.  
> However, If you continue withthis ad hominem and insulting technique of 
> refutation, I will forward myresponse to the remaining harassing letters back to 
> this list, so all herecan see how low you have stooped to discredit my ideas 
> that seem to havedisturbed you emotionally... Possibly, I may assume, since I 
> claim that theABC field theory solves many of the hard problems of 
> consciousness and brain-mindbinding, as well as other paradoxes and anomalies that 
> conventional materialscience (in which you apparently have an unwavering belief 
> in its infallibility)cannot come up with even an inkling of a solution.
> I would appreciate-- unless you can deal with your disagreements with ABC 
> field theory directlyon its merits, using reasonable and logical arguments (and 
> cease either director indirect personal ad hominem remarks, accusations, or 
> other spurious arguments)-- that you immediately stop this correspondence 
> with me, or to others referringto my theory or to me personally in a similar 
> derogatory manner as in yourletter quoted below.
> Sincerely,
> Leon Maurer
> ABC Home Page
> How It All Began
> P.S. With reference to Blavatsky's phrase I quoted when describing the 
> natureof the analogous coenergetic fields of consciousness of both the Universeand 
> the individual human -- which you said, after supposedly researchingall of 
> Blavatsky's works which is almost impossible) that I "made it up"and was thus 
> a "liar" and an "imposter" (in a letter sent to me personally)...To use such 
> a ploy to discredit me and my theory is unconscionable and rattyat best, and 
> I hope you receive the equivalent results of such karma as yourHindu religion 
> proscribes. 
> The following excerpt from The Theosophical Glossaryproves that you are the 
> pot calling the kettle black.  Personally, your adhominem methods of argument 
> and your insulting personal accusations, is sufficientevidence to prove to 
> me your lack of scientific integrity and underhandednature.
> "Coadunation or Coadunition [from Latin coadunareto unify] Union; used in 
> theosophical literature to define the interrelationof the globes of any 
> planetary chain. Speaking of the earth-chain, "In short,as Globes, they are in 
> co-adunition but not in consubstantialitywith our earth and thus pertain to quite 
> another state of consciousness"(SD 1:166). Were they consubstantial they 
> would be on the same plane andof the same degree of manifested substance that our 
> fourth-plane or physicalglobe earth is, whereas the higher globes are on 
> different planes (cf SD1:200, diagram). Yet they form one unitary system. 
> Nevertheless, this mustnot be taken as implying that they occupy the same space. 
> "Of course if therewas anything in those 'worlds' approaching to the 
> constitution of our globeit would be an utter fallacy, an absurdity to say that they 
> are within our world and within each other (as they are) and that yet, they 'do 
> not intermingle together' " (Blavatsky Letters to Sinnett, 250). 
> From: Oxford American Dictionaries
> impostor |im?p?st?r| |1m?p?st?r| |?m?p?st?| (also imposter)
> noun
> a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, esp. 
> for fraudulent gain. See note at quack .
> ORIGIN late 16th cent.(in early use spelled imposture, and sometimes 
> confused with imposture in meaning): from French imposteur, from late Latin impostor
> , contraction of impositor, from Latin imponere (see impose ).
> Thesaurus
> impostor
> noun
> it turned out the meter reader was an impostor | the biometrics cannot be 
> duplicated by impostors impersonator,masquerader, pretender, imitator, 
> deceiver, hoaxer, trickster, fraudster,swindler; fake, fraud, sham, phony, scammer. 
> See note at quack .
> From: Wikipedia 
> "An impostor (or imposter, a common variant) is a person who pretends to be 
> somebody else.
> Most impostors try to gain financial or social advantages. Pretenders for 
> various thrones used to be common. Numerous men claimed they were Dauphin, heir 
> to the French throne who disappeared during the French Revolution. There 
> were at least two false Dimitris who were serious pretenders for the throne of 
> Russia.
> Verydaring impostors may pretend to be someone else who really exists 
> althoughfast news media has made this rather difficult in these days. Usually 
> theyjust misrepresent their financial, educational or social status, family b
> ackgroundand in some cases, their gender.
> (And, thanks, Dirk.  I appreciate your open mindededness.  Qestions and 
> comments welcome. LM)
> In a message dated 4/27/06 10:43:08 AM, writes:
> Ihave read some of Leon's writings on the internet and conclude that he isan 
> imposter. If he has done all that he claims he would have received theNobel 
> Prize by now. Two of his most preposterous claims are quoted belowwith links 
> to the originals. The most preposterous is that he apparentlythinks he knows 
> the structure of M-theory ( coadunate. but not consubstantialspherical 
> fields). His papers are of course devoid of mathematics or anyphysical laws.
> "The theory of ABC, is in the same stage of early development as Einstein's
> theory was before his mathematical and observational proof -- (which didn't
> come in until almost 30 years after he delivered his first paper)... 
> However,
> ABC takes Einstein's relativity theories, as well as all later quantum
> electrodynamics and multidimensional radiative electricity theories one step
> beyond, and links them directly to the First Cause of the universe's
> dynamic expansion from abstract noumenal space to multidimensional 
> phenomenal
> space-in which consciousness and matter are its dual phenomenological
> aspects."
> "Infact, the theories of relativity, photoelectricity, quanta, and even 
> Superstring- with its multidimensional [3+7] hyperspaces and M-branes [coadunate. 
> butnot consubstantial spherical fields] which almost identically emulates 
> the"wheels within wheels" teachings in the Secret Doctrine--"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dirk Laureyssens <>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:13:00 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, 
> Thinking, Mind, Brain
> Hi Richard,
> I read your "attack" on Leon, i.e. his use of the word "Singularity". 
> I interpret Leon's use of this word as referring to the level where 
> zero-energy governs. Like how with the Casimir effect shows virtual 
> particles to pop-up and disappear again. Or Einstein-Bose 
> condensates. Leon may call that a background consciousness (correct 
> me if I am wrong Leon), but to me it's it is "neutral" energy, not 
> yet manifested. Hawking called the point of singularity the basic 
> starting point of the Big Bang. Remember that at Hawking's point of 
> singularity Einstein's formula doesn't work anymore.
> However I am interested to know how you interpret the term: "Brane". 
> It's easy to say "brane" but I would like to know what mechanical 
> concept lays behind. Is it an elastic entity? Are "sib-points" 
> interconnected? Is there dynamics involved? Is it chaotic? Is there 
> "background dependency" (the background "makes" the further up-
> combinations?).
> Further I like to know how you see "time". How can time have properties?
> To me "time" makes only sense if it is related to an observer when he 
> observes certain phenomena (i.e. a velocity of an object in a certain 
> frame of reference).
> Time can not be a separate and independent natural "force". Time is 
> related to Existence.
> <Snip>

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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application