Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: University Of Leicester Leads International Study With Potential That Is 'Stuff Of Science Fiction'
Aug 16, 2006 06:12 PM
This might fill in the gaps left by my earlier letter on this subject and
previous posts about ABC theory. Len
> Richard, you wrote:
> "It sounds like your theory cannot make quantitative predictions."
> I'll have to admit that... So far, all the ABC model can logically and
> reasonably derive is the qualitative aspects of the primal beginning (singularity)
> at the moment of the Big Bang, through the fractal involution of its
> Spinergy's radiated fields, and up to the breaking of symmetry in their lowest order
> physical-phenomenal field when the bosonic particles first appear -- where
> QFT, QM, and String theory mathematics could start making predictions...
> As I see it, there cannot be any mathematics related to these inner
> hyperspace realms surrounding the zero-points (everywhere in configuration space)
> that can be confirmed by observational measurement or other proof... Although
> there must be sufficient noumenal energy there to account for all the
> phenomenal energy tied up in all the physical particles as well as black holes
> throughout the universe -- that, essentially, all came out of that original
> "spinergy" of the primal singularity at the moment of the Big Bang.
> Of course, then, the only "quantitative" prediction this theory can make is
> that the initial force is equivalent to the total mass/energy, whether light
> or dark, of the entire Cosmos. The only mathematical roots I can see giving
> credence to that, might be those of infinite set theory coupled with the
> multidimensional mathematics of string and M-theories, along with the
> conventional mathematics of relativity and quantum physics -- once they are all
> synthesized into one consistent progressive symbology starting from zero and
> extending to infinity.
> So, as I said, I'll have to leave that hyperspace and primal space
> mathematics for later inference from the presently worked out mathematics of all the
> above mentioned quantum and string theories -- when they are proven to be
> correct by objective empirical and observational means.
> In any event, so far, ABC is primarily an ontological theory rather than an
> epistemological one.
> As I see it, the initial fourteen fractally involved coenergetic fields the
> ABC model postulates prior to breaking of symmetry are, -- as aspects of
> hyperspace conjoining absolute space with metric space -- beyond all metrics of
> the 4-dimensional space-time continuum (that is subject to direct observation
> and measurement}.
> It's obvious, at least to me and my multidimensional, fractal geometric
> visualizations, that this metric space-time frequency-energy must be rooted in
> its own physical (i.e., metric) zero-point level -- which is at a later stage
> of involution (fourth to be exact) than the Absolute zero-point at the primal
> beginning... Although, in this model, I see a number of zero-point
> singularities both before and after that -- since every inner fractally involved
> coenergetic field has its origin from its own lower order zero-point spinergy
> [based on its own frequency energy phase order and its individual hyperspace
> metrics]. I wonder if any scientific materialist can wrap his mind around and
> visualize that? (It might help to see the diagrams at:
> So, if all that makes the ABC theory "unscientific "under the present rules
> of scientific materialism and its methods -- then, so be it. However, as at
> least one possible prediction, it does predict the Casimir effect -- due to
> the energetic "quantum foam" resulting from the hyperspace energies of ABC
> fields that exist between the quantum particles and the absolute zero-points
> everywhere. Unfortunately the only mathematics applicable to the quantitative
> values of these energies must come, by inference, from the quantum side of the
> effect itself -- since the Casimir force can only be measured on that
> physical-phenomenal aspect of overall reality. (However, when we can measure the
> forces in the quantum foam, that will be another story. :)
> In any event, from my view, the theory does reasonably and parsimoniously
> explain consciousness, its mechanisms, and brain-mind binding, as well as
> offering a reasonable basis for the possibility of psychic phenomena,
> entanglement, and the source of gravity, along with all the other fundamental forces
> (from a materialistic point of view). It is also consistent with, predictive and
> supportive of all the fundamental scientific laws, such as conservation,
> symmetry, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, entropy, enthalpy, harmonics,
> holographics, etc., etc. -- by simple logical and deductive reasoning -- starting
> from absolute zero and fundamental spinergy, or infinite angular momentum...
> This momentum is considered, fundamentally, as "abstract motion"... An absolute
> noumenal necessity so as to underlie and support the total phenomenal
> frequency-energies of the observed universe beginning from its primal "singularity"
> (according to general relativity). The only way the entire universe, both
> dark and light, could be equal to the sum of its parts, is if the singularity
> and all its infinite zero-points of universal and individualized
> consciousness and their associated noumenal "spinergy's" that underlie its phenomenal
> particles, could be considered as being among all its parts.
> So, let the scientific materialists scoff at this Model as being
> unscientific... Even though, from a purely reasonable and logical point of view -- in
> contrast to their theories that give no provable answers to the hard problems
> and other questions of consciousness (awareness, qualia, will), mind and
> memory -- this theory explains them simply and directly without contradicting any
> observable neural correlates, fundamental laws of physics, or any valid
> psychological or psychophysical process.
> In a message dated 8/6/06 7:08:22 PM, email@example.com writes:
> It sounds like your theory cannot make quantitative predictions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org, subject to observational proof to
> verify any of the dynamics.
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:23:16 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: University Of Leicester Leads
> International Study With Potential That Is 'Stuff Of Science Fiction'
> I never tried to explain the Casimir effect, but simply stated that it was a
> proof of the existence of the ABC fields as the sub quantum basis of all
> material phenomena.
> Actually, my model has everything to do with the Casimir effect -- since the
> fractally involved coenergetic fields that fill the Planck space "vacuum"
> and the spinergy of their zero-point centers, that are everywhere within ALL of
> space, are the sources of the energies that produce the Casimir effect. Of
> course, since my model concerns only the existence and geometric-topological
> form of such fields and forces, I'll leave the mathematics and measurements
> of the dynamics of the Casimir effect up to the physicists who need them to
> prove their own quantum field and M theories -- that can only be explained
> mathematically among their peers.
> In a message dated 8/5/06 8:46:25 AM, email@example.com writes:
> You got it backwards. My question is what does your model have to do with
> the Casimir effect. You tried to explain the Casimir effect using your model in
> the post I replied to
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application