[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |

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

Aug 16, 2006 06:12 PM

by leonmaurer

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: > http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html > > 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. > > Regards, > > Leon > > In a message dated 8/6/06 7:08:22 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes: > > > > It sounds like your theory cannot make quantitative predictions > > -----Original Message----- > From: leonmaurer@aol.commathematics, 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. > > Leon > > In a message dated 8/5/06 8:46:25 AM, yanniru@netscape.net 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]

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