Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00277)

Whew, now I see why HPB was a chain smoker!

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 1/21/0811:15 AM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
> 
> > Hi:
> >
> > Here (bottom) is not a conflict of personalities, but of world- 
> > views in science-garb. One seems to be more of an applied 
science  
> > or engineering and the other of physics.
> >
> > Since there is no mathematical basis suggested or formulated, 
nor  
> > observable evidences of any kind. both are just subjective views  
> > and opinions, not evidential hypotheses or empirical 
observations.  
> > Even if there are some rational equations for the physical  
> > componets of these imaginations, there is no factor 
corresponding  
> > to mind or consciousness possible.
> >
> > Since both have the inscrutable enigma of 'Mind" 
or "Consciousness"  
> > in REAL time and REAL space as an imagined achievable 
explicatory  
> > goal, both views take the appearance of 'dealing with REALITIES' 
in  
> > a field where any immagination is not unothodox, but assumes a  
> > reality of its own. A mirage is REAL physicality, only there is 
no  
> > water in it.
> >
> > A Cosmic Egg suggested here is just that, be it Chinese or 
Hindu.  
> > It is nothing more and nothing less. Those 'infallible super-
wise'  
> > Sages or gods or whatever titles befit the culture and life 
styles  
> > of their devotees, never meant or knew any modern science, 
despite  
> > the claims of notables of the stature of Oppenheimer and Bohm 
and  
> > Pauli to the contrary. These rishis or maharishis meant a REAL 
egg,  
> > only Too Big. It is incredulous to derive any science or even  
> > philosophy out of these conjectures which are so evidently  
> > superstitious and gallingly mindless. All that it does is making  
> > modern science itself a cosmic egg-head!
> > Naiveté knows no limits.
> >
> No. The Hindu and Chinese philosopher-scientists (as well as all  
> practical theosophists) only use the "egg" as a metaphor -- since  
> they know that there could not be a chicken (phenomenal universe)  
> without an egg (noumenal universe) or an egg without a chicken.  
The  
> real naiveté is on the part of egg-head scientists who religiously  
> believe that something can come from nothing, or blindly accept an  
> imaginary personal godhead who can make miracles.
> 
> Could we imagine any sentient being, that evolves from our 
phenomenal  
> universe, NOT consisting of both subjective awareness (i.e.,  
> consciousness) and objective substance (i.e., matter-energy)?  Or,  
> could we imagine either of those necessities for independent  
> existence, NOT being inherent (at least noumenally) in 
whatever "egg"  
> gave birth to that universal being -- which, in turn, gives birth 
to  
> all its internal sentient beings of lesser life spans, 
intelligence,  
> consciousness, etc. -- ad infinitum?  Isn't it obvious, then, that  
> this cosmic being must be reflected analogously within every human  
> being that exists at the peak of sentient organismic evolution?  
So,  
> how could the cosmos, as reflected in every human brain-body, NOT 
be  
> a hologram -- as Bohm-Pribram pointed out?  And, if so -- how 
could  
> all its interconnected energy fields NOT be fractally involved out 
of  
> one common (entangled) zero-point singularity -- that is located  
> everywhere in the gravitational field of physical spacetime?
> 
> Since conventional science is based on the assumption that 
everything  
> and every experience (both subjective and objective) stems from an  
> initial matter which exists all by itself -- it's empirical  
> materialistic physics is so limited philosophically, it could 
never  
> see the forest for the trees, or even speculate about the overall  
> underlying reality with any sort of rational argument.  Therefore, 
I,  
> think Oppenheimer, Pauli, Bohm, Whitehead, Einstein, Schrödinger,  
> Klein, Pribram, et al, recognized that fallacy in scientific  
> thinking, and had some reasonable arguments to state their case...  
> Just as the string theorists with their multidimensional 
hyperspace  
> fields, superstrings, M-branes, etc. have some equally logical  
> reasoning as well as mathematics to state theirs (even though they  
> still can't see the dynamic and informational connection between  
> matter and consciousness, or explain the fundamental source of 
both  
> -- without resorting to epiphenomenalism... Which is a weak cop 
out  
> and just as "superstitious" as believing in a separate godhead 
that  
> creates everything by magic.
> 
> Since conventional reductive materialist science can't even come  
> close to explaining non material consciousness, its source, its  
> qualia, its will energy, its non-locality, its informational  
> connection to and binding with mind, memory, brain body, world,  
> etc. ... I think my ABC model -- based on consciousness as a  
> fundamental quality of Absolute mother SPACE -- is a reasonable  
> solution to all these problems. Especially when we consider that 
the  
> fractally involved higher frequency-energy order electrodynamic  
> fields radiating from its spin momentum, are the media of all the  
> encoded and modulated information of consciousness (e.g., mind,  
> memory, body model or map, autonomic instincts, latent learning,  
> knowledge, etc.)... With such *hyperspace* fields -- based on the  
> obvious holographic as well as fundamental electrodynamic nature 
of  
> ALL reality -- carrying all such information as modulated wave  
> interference patterns on their surfaces.
> 
> Couldn't this interrelated and entangled hyperspace zero-point 
field  
> system also explain the underlying basis of all commonly 
experienced  
> and repeatedly reported psi phenomena?  And doesn't the three  
> dimensional (3-axis) involutions of all such fields of matter-
energy,  
> also explain the origin of the two forms of analogous dark matter- 
> energy -- whose added gravitational effects are observed by the  
> cosmologists?
> 
> What is the fear in the minds of the committed physicalist 
scientists  
> that prevents them from even considering the possibility of such a  
> rationally logical cosmogenesis, that is beyond all superstitions,  
> mysticisms. or religious beliefs?
> 
> On the Cosmic physical level, such fields would extend from the 
ZPE  
> fields in the false vacuum of hyperspace (science's Plank space as  
> well as intergalactic space) ) down to the lowest order  
> electromagnetic gamma wave field of the brain's combined neural  
> network. Thus, unlike conventional physics, in this model there 
are  
> no explanatory gaps or discontinuities in the overall involution 
and  
> evolution of the universe, from the primal beginning to its 
present  
> state of existence -- with both subjectively and objectively] as a  
> fundamental unity.  At all levels of phenomenal existence,  
> subjectivity (consciousness) without objectivity (matter-energy), 
or  
> objectivity without subjectivity, is unthinkable.  If otherwise,  
> science itself would be entirely meaningless.  Q.E.D.
> 
> For a descriptive and illustrated overview of the ABC model, see:  
> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
> 
> So, let us argue these holistic theories, either pro and con, 
using  
> reasonable and logical conjecture or proof -- but let's not  
> arbitrarily deny them based on groundless preconditioned beliefs 
and  
> opinions, along with irrational and non sequitur ad hominem  
> comments.  Any true scientific philosopher or philosophical 
scientist  
> should have a completely open mind to consider all possible  
> explanations of fundamental reality without prejudice.
> 
> I look forward to whatever such scientists/philosophers might have 
to  
> say with respect to any unified field theory of everything 
(including  
> consciousness) or my ABC theory in particular.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon Maurer
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Philip Benjamin
> >
> > From: HELENDRUMS@...
> > To: leonmaurer@...; medinuclear@...
> > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:30:04 -0500
> >
> >
> > No Leon. Like you I derive everything from a singularity. 
Actually  
> > absolute space is derived from a 26d singularity and the space 
of  
> > our universe is derived from 16d singularity. Apparently you did  
> > not take the time to read my paper. I do believe you can read. 
The  
> > SUSY universe comes from 10d superstring theory, which is 
secondary  
> > to my claim that the compactified space of spins amounts to the  
> > mind of god.
> >
> > The problem with your model is that it is not based on science. 
For  
> > example the electrodynamic field results after three broken  
> > symmetries in physics and is not at all fundamental. The unified  
> > field is fundamental.
> >
> > The nature of megaspace or absolute space is that it only 
carries  
> > the force of gravity, which is clearly mention in my paper. How 
did  
> > you miss that?
> >
> > So my model is an extrapolation of known physics whereas your 
model  
> > contradicts known physics. As far as I can tell your model is a  
> > figment of your imagination. The Cosmic Egg of Hindu Bagavatum 
is  
> > of course my 16d black holes that give birth to all universes.
> >
> > You admit that you do not know physics or math yet persist in 
using  
> > scientific terminology incorrectly. But then you are rather old 
and  
> > it's probably too late the change your thinking. I'm afraid your  
> > model will die along with you. Too bad. If you were not so pig  
> > headed, it could have amounted to something significant
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Richard
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Leon Maurer
> > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > Cc: Philip Benjamin
> > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 3:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > Thank you for finally backing up your continued unexplained 
denials  
> > and refutations of my ABC holographic field/information/ 
> > consciousness theory with such a detailed alternative reductive  
> > physics view of overall spatial reality.
> >
> > I'm afraid that I don't have the detailed knowledge of reductive  
> > physics and its mathematics, or even its jargon, to be able to  
> > follow your presumptions, assertions,and speculative  
> > conclusions...  Let alone comment on its seemingly (to me) anti  
> > Occam's razor, over complexity.
> >
> > The problem is that, as usual you base everything on what 
appears  
> > to be a wrong reductive materialist premise... And instead of  
> > seeing the simplicity of starting to build the multidimensional  
> > enfolded spaces from their bottom up (inside out), and their  
> > natural fractal involution starting from dual parallel rays of ± 
G- 
> > force (of opposite polarity) emanating from a zero-point of  
> > infinite spin momentum -- you derive them by compaction from the  
> > top down (outside in)... Beginning with the basic assumption 
that  
> > everything starts from a full blown metric and energetic 
megaspace  
> > that is fully evolved and inflated, without any birth or 
genesis...  
> > Out of what? -- I cant imagine... And which your physics can't  
> > explain. Apparently, your SUSY universe appears magically out of  
> > nothing.
> >
> > The problem with all your assertions (that seem to deny the  
> > progression from primal SPACE that I postulate -- which would 
have  
> > to be a continuous fractal involution of electrodynamic fields  
> > starting from an infinite spin momentum -- is that you never  
> > explain the underlying causes, structures, interconnections, or 
the  
> > rational involution and evolution behind the spacial dimensions 
and  
> > "particles" you talk about.  For example, what is the nature of 
the  
> > megaspace out of which all other spaces derive?  What gave it  
> > birth? and what is the mechanism of such derivation?
> >
> > So, rather than nit pick your words out of context, I'll just  
> > comment below wherever I find some statement or conclusion that  
> > doesn't fit with my simple and direct knowledge of the fractally  
> > involved genesis of the entire cosmos ... As a unified 
phenomenal  
> > (metric) expression of the all encompassing "megaspace" 
itself...  
> > Starting from its spherically polarized, triune fractal birth 
out  
> > of the infinite abstract motion, or angular momentum of a  
> > "singularity", or triple axial spin of Absolute *unconditioned*  
> > primal SPACE... Existing eternally as potentially ubiquitous and  
> > conscious, infinite "singularities" of potential universes -- 
that  
> > are beyond all *conditioned* metric space and time, and 
completely  
> > unexplainable by any reductive scientific theory limited only to  
> > this particular universe ... Even your "branes" could not exist  
> > unless they were part of a fundamental unconditioned Absolute 
SPACE  
> > that is beyond all scientific speculations.  Besides, the 
surfaces  
> > of the ABC fractally involved fields could easily account for 
the  
> > "Branes" in SS/M theory.  The difference is between an actual  
> > existence based on genetic fractal field geometry, along with an  
> > electrodynamics based on fundamental laws of cycles, that can  
> > deduce the final effects -- and an assumed pre-existence, out of  
> > nothing, based on contrived symbolic mathematical relationships  
> > that bypasses causal origin, works back or down from effects, 
and  
> > cannot induce fundamental causes -- nor link to consciousness  
> > through a chain of logical informational transformations.
> >
> > It is This Primal SPACE that is both the creative force and the  
> > receptive womb that contains the cosmic eggs out of which all  
> > subsequent universes, with their metaphysical hyperspace and  
> > physical metric space fields, involve and evolve, simply and  
> > directly ... With our cosmos being only one of those infinite  
> > universes... All of which are governed by the same fundamental 
laws  
> > rooted in primal spin momentum.
> >
> > Thus, every thing (all multidimensional space-time fields and 
all  
> > matter-energy forms) throughout all spherically manifest SPACE-
TIME  
> > universes, are essentially analogous and corresponding, in 
accord  
> > with holographic principles -- based on ubiquitous fractal 
geometry  
> > and spin... And are fundamentally conscious at every non local 
zero- 
> > point source of all fractally involved information/energy 
fields,  
> > ad infinitum.  This, includes all zero-point fields from the ZPE 
at  
> > the Planck level to the black hole centers of every galaxy, 
nova,  
> > star, potential star, planet, organism, organ, cell, virus, etc., 
etc.
> >
> > Therefore, right from the beginning, everything (including  
> > spacetime itself) is electrodynamic in fundamental nature, and 
all  
> > the laws of electricity, harmony, resonance, capacitance,  
> > resistance, etc, universally underly all the physical laws of  
> > nature.  As I see it, which incidentally, doesn't contradict any  
> > valid or *proven* physics -- it's these laws that are also the  
> > roots of all quantum dynamics, and the origin of all cosmic 
matter- 
> > energy fields and their forms and effects.
> >
> > All that, of course, entirely reverses your cosmology, in which 
you  
> > say, putting the cart before the horse, that "spin is due to the  
> > rolling up of a preexistent megaspace" (by a process that cannot 
be  
> > explained) -- with so many twists, turns, and illogical  
> > assumptions, that I got lost on the first reductive circular  
> > argumentative loop. :-)  In addition, the ABC model fills in the  
> > one thing left out in your theory -- by fully explaining the 
exact  
> > method whereby consciousness, information, mind, memory, and 
matter  
> > are interconnected holographically and electrodynamically  
> > throughout all the phases and planes of hyperspacial (First 
Logos)  
> > field involutions and physical (metric) spatial evolutions -- 
that  
> > result, after symmetry breaking on the lower frequency-energy 
order  
> > physical spacetime, in quantum particle waves, stars, galaxies, 
and  
> > myriad forms of sentient forms -- culminating in conscious human  
> > beings that are analogous microcosms of the macrocosm... Just 
like  
> > the teachings of the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist Kiu-Te or Book of  
> > the Golden Precepts, and the Hebrew Kabbala's interpretation of 
the  
> > Pentateuch (Old Testament Bible).
> >
> > In addition, this theory leaves room for a "God we Trust" -- 
since  
> > the primal beginning or "Singularity" has built into it, a 
cosmic  
> > all seeing consciousness, and an immutable law or governance of 
a  
> > perfectly harmonious nature... So long as individual human greed  
> > doesn't interfere with it... And by so doing, setting up  
> > disharmonious dissonances resulting in reactive retributional  
> > responses (karma).  Thus -- since individual consciousness 
(linked  
> > to its initial higher order triune monad fields in hyperspace) 
is  
> > indestructible and can be expressed anywhere -- we are doomed to  
> > reflectively re-experience the karma we individually and  
> > collectively make, through endless lifetimes of suffering... As 
the  
> > Buddha pointed out (and the similarly misunderstood Christ 
echoed  
> > three centuries later).  So, I'm not much of a fan of a falsely  
> > based reductive science that continues to feed and condone the  
> > greed -- with its technological assistance that leads to more 
and  
> > more warfare, strife and suffering, and its denial of the true,  
> > inter-connective nature of fundamental reality... Thus fostering  
> > the worship of false Gods by those willing to ignore the real  
> > essence of the teachings of their religion's founder and teacher.
> >
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2008, at 1/2/088:46 AM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
> >
> > Leon,
> >
> > Since you is always complaining about my nitpicking your theory,  
> > below is a rendition of my 26d model based on string theories. 
The  
> > subspace of compactified balls of space may correspond to your  
> > hyperspace. It's somewhat like an aether
> >
> >
> > THE SUBSPACE    A 26 dimensional model based on all string 
theories
> >  An idea so simple that one wonders why it has not been stated 
before:
> >
> > I. Compactification:
> >
> > Most of you understand the basics of superstring theory
> > That starting with 10 dimensions, for 3 to expand in a timely way
> > 6 dimensions have to break up and form tiny balls.
> >
> > How does string theory explain where the 10 dimensional space 
came  
> > from, what it is composed of, and why/how the 6 dimensions had 
to  
> > break up and form tiny balls of, presumedly, the same 
fundamental  
> > Space stuff?
> >
> > The most obvious question is:
> > Where did these Planck-scale balls of space go?
> > And the most obvious answer is:
> > They did not go anywhere.
> >
> > They are still with us throughout the universe
> > Planck sized balls microscopically scattered
> > But denser than the densest fluid
> >
> > I'll buy that.  But it still doesn't tell me anything about the  
> > real nature of those "space balls" (or should I ask Mel Brooks?;-
)  
> > Nor does it explain how they are electrodynamically 
interconnected  
> > with each other, along with the overall mother space fields and 
its  
> > 4-dimensional spacetime?
> >
> > String theorists solved the equations of superstring theory so  
> > successfully
> > that they got a landscape of possible ball configurations called  
> > manifolds and
> > are apparently hung up trying to select the point of our 
universe  
> > in that landscape
> >
> > I say use OCCUM's Razor and just pick the simplest manifold, 
which is:
> >
> > The use of Occam's razor is just a cop out to justify reductive  
> > materialism, and therefore, the conclusion made is an assertive  
> > assumption that is not a logically valid or true nature of the  
> > "landscape" or its contents labeled "our universe".
> >
> > Assume a spatial configuration of dimensions with 3 dimensions  
> > collinear
> > That is three coordinate systems lie in the east west direction
> > And the same for north-south and up-down.
> > In order for one dimension in each direction to expand,
> > the other two have to break up and roll up
> >
> > Why?  What's the basis of that assumption?
> >
> > The break up is essential and likely happens randomly
> > So that at some points in expanding space
> > The amount of space rolled up is greater than others
> >
> > What has any of this to do with an explanation of actual 
reality?   
> > Why does the two other spaces have to roll up for the other to  
> > expand?  Unless the cross section of those presumedly spherical  
> > fields are actually in the form of a figure eight knot -- just 
like  
> > the necessary fractally involved triune Monadic fields of my ABC  
> > cosmogenesis... Which also line up on each axis of the spherical  
> > megaspace, as higher order light and dark matter-energy fields.   
> > But, if so, then superstring theory has to be based on those  
> > fractally involved cosmogenetic fields... And, thus, the 
assumption  
> > that they "break up" and "roll up randomly" is nothing more than 
an  
> > unfounded presumption to fit the SUSY mathematics.
> >
> >
> > If you can picture it,
> > the rolling up of each compactified dimension
> > Produces a spin effect.
> > Each compactified point contains six loops of subspace
> > With 6 orthogonal spin vectors in every direction:
> > north, south, east, west, up and down
> >
> > Wouldn't it be far much more logical and parsimonious to assume  
> > that it's the spin that causes the fields to radiate and involve 
on  
> > a particular polar axes rather than making the back assward  
> > assumption that its the magically created SYSY fields that cause  
> > the spin.  But, I'll have to admit that the the numbers 
correspond  
> > with ABC theory -- since the 6 rolled up fields on each axis  
> > correspond to the fractally involved inner fields of the Second  
> > Logos, or the lower physical-astral inner fields of the third 
Logos.
> >
> >  10d superstring theory with Occum's Razor predicts that
> > the subspace is a 3D array of 6 orthogonal spins of variable 
strength
> > A landscape of spins to carry information on
> >
> > None of this makes any sense unless we understand the genesis of  
> > the so called "subspace".  It's much simpler to assume that the 
six  
> > hyperspace 3D fields (of light matter-energy) are inside the  
> > overall 3D metric spacetime gravitational field... In accord 
with  
> > the fractal bubbles within bubbles configuration, as shown in 
the  
> > ABC topological geometry diagrams.  This would come to 21 total  
> > directional dimensions of the light matter fields (including the  
> > overall mother field), and along with the the dark matter fields  
> > would total 57.  In addition there would be a total of 12 inner  
> > fields on the second and third logos of the light matter -- 
which  
> > seems to correspond to the 12 psychophysical 12 field theory of 
BEB  
> > -- which, like SS/M theory, until ABC, never had any 
consciousness  
> > consistent logical causal basis to justify it.
> >
> > In this ABC view, dark matter-energy fields, except for overall  
> > spatial gravitional effects, would be entirely passive with 
respect  
> > to the light matter-energy fields -- since they are enfolded on  
> > different axes of the overall gravitational *mother* field.   
> > However, since it's possible and most likely probable that the 
dark  
> > matter fields have never broken symmetry, and haven't 
precipitated  
> > any mass-energy forms, there would be no possible electrodynamic 
or  
> > chemical interaction between the light and dark matter-energy  
> > fields -- other than those effects contributing to observed  
> > gravitational lensing, universal expansion, galactic rotation, 
etc.
> >
> > It's also perfectly natural that the inner lower order light and  
> > dark matter fields of the third fractal iteration (or 3rd Logos) 
on  
> > each light-dark axis, gradually becomes more and more dense as 
they  
> > continue to evolve down to the level of the physical quantum  
> > particle fields, and below that through the ZPE fields in the  
> > Planck dimension.  In my view, the only dimensions are the three  
> > axial or six polar directions or linear extensions in each of 
the  
> > spherical hyperspace fields... Although we might also call each  
> > level of inner fractal fields, different "dimensions" of 
frequency- 
> > energy phase orders enfolded within the overall mother spacetime  
> > field. All of these fractal involutions, one inside the other,  
> > etc., etc. -- being entirely analogous and corresponding, as 
well  
> > as contributing to the overall holographic nature of all 
existences  
> > on both sub or metaphysical and physical levels of reality.  
Thus  
> > concluding that mind and memory fields are separate from yet  
> > electrodynamically and holographically (informationally)  
> > interconnected with all brain-body fields.
> >
> > So, how can "spin" itself carry information -- when only the  
> > vibrating *spin field* surfaces of the coadunate ABC fields can  
> > carry the frequency modulated wave interference patterns that 
are  
> > the holographically encoded information underlying both material  
> > constructions and conscious experience?  However if you consider  
> > the spin moments of the singularity as carrying information that 
is  
> > directly available to pure universal consciousness at the 
entangled  
> > zero-points of Absolute or primal SPACE -- then that is another  
> > story unrelated to phenomenal individualized self reflective  
> > consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc,) experienced on the  
> > physical metric plane.
> >
> > But there is more: the need for supersymmetry in 10d theory
> >
> > II. Supersymmetry:
> >
> > Closed loop 26d string theory allows for the creation of bosons,
> > mainly gravity whereas Supersymmetry in necessary to make 
fermions  
> > or matter
> >
> > In 10d string theory at the point of creation of a fermion
> > A sfermion, a boson, the fermions superpartner, must also be 
created
> > And for completeness whenever a photon is created
> > Its superpartner the photino, a fermion, is also created, and so 
on.
> >
> > Physicist do acknowledge that the superpartners are still with us
> > and they likely make up what is called Dark Matter.
> >
> > As I explained above, the Dark Matter fields have nothing to do  
> > with the so called "superpartners" -- which could be limited to 
the  
> > light matter fields only, on the physical and astral levels that  
> > electromagnetically interact, and thus generate quantum and sub  
> > quantum effects that can be mathematically predicted.   
> > Unfortunately, there's no way that such mathematics can predict 
the  
> > actual nature and cause of the "superpartners"  (which I think 
some  
> > scientists consider as antimatter or particles of opposite  
> > chirality).  In any event, since string physics is based on the  
> > same reductive materialism assumptions as quantum physics, I 
don't  
> > give those theories much credence when it comes to describing or  
> > explaining the true nature of multidimensional spatial reality 
on  
> > the sub-physical or spiritual-mental levels.  Therefore, I 
prefer  
> > to go along with Einstein, when he said "God doesn't play dice" --
  
> > with reference to indeterminacy theories, and stick with his  
> > original ideas about absolute zero-point singularities, aether,  
> > black/light holes, curved space, gravitational tension, initial  
> > symmetry, quantum and photoelectric reality, etc., etc... All of  
> > which is the foundational basis of ABC theory -- that must also  
> > underlie all reductive SUSY and string theories.
> >
> > Unless the superpartners somehow decay away
> > They are extremely numerous being equal to the
> >  number of  fermions plus anti-fermions before recombination.
> > Recombination annihilated almost all the physical fermions in 
our  
> > universe
> > Being so numerous the superpartners must form an almost massless  
> > dense fluid
> > Since each superpartner has a global wave function, the fluid is 
a  
> > galactic BEC
> >
> > This conclusion (BEC) makes some sense... But I think its  
> > assumptive basis is far too speculative to be taken seriously --  
> > except by physicists trying to justify reductive materialism.  
In  
> > my bottom up view the source of the galactic BEC is based on the  
> > fundamental cyclic "spin" momentum that endows all primal 
radiant  
> > fields with wave functions (as their fundamental vibrational  
> > frequency). Thus, the initial fields are in a different higher  
> > frequency energy order of primal space and are enfolded 
everywhere  
> > in the Planck space and standing in a parallel hyperspace that,  
> > besides generating and empowering all fundamental particle 
fields  
> > -- links, informationally, to the light matter-energy space 
through  
> > phase conjugate adaptive resonance processes.  Thus, bringing  
> > consciousness into physical conjunction with all material 
substance  
> > fields... The one thing left out of all reductive scientific  
> > theories that wrongly assumes consciousness as an epiphenomena 
of  
> > material or neural complexity.
> >
> > III. Numerology
> >
> > We are at the point of trying to combine closed loop (bosonic) 
26d  
> > string theory
> > With 10d superstring theory (closed bosonic and open fermionic 
loops)
> >
> > We need two postulates:
> > 1. Our universe is a 3D brane in a much larger 3D space
> > 2. Two-time physics applies to 26d string theory
> >
> > That is our universe is a (3D+T) brane embedded in a (3D+T) 
megaspace
> > So subtracting the 8 expanding dimensions we get
> > 18 compactified dimensions that I wager come in 3 sets
> >
> > One set of 6 compactified balls of space allowed the expansion 
of  
> > megaspace
> >
> > And because of supersymmetry
> > Two sets of 6 compactified balls of space created our universe
> > One set being associated with our physical universe
> > And one set more associated with the supersymmetric partners
> >
> > In essence each dimension carried a certain amount of phase space.
> > In our megaspace model compactification of 2/3rds of the total  
> > initial phase space
> > allowed the expansion of the other third
> > But for each universe 6/7ths of the available phase space is  
> > compactified
> > To expand the other 7th
> >
> > Except for the confusion between spatial "dimensions" or 
descending  
> > fractally involved phase orders of frequency energy, with the  
> > metric "dimensions" of extension, and the confusion of the the  
> > initial inner field dualities with the fundamental trinities -- 
I  
> > can see how some of this "numerology" corresponds with the Super  
> > symmetrical fields within fields, within fields, of the ABC 
theory  
> > prior to the breaking of symmetry on the fourth lowest frequency- 
> > energy order physical plane.
> >
> > IV. The Levels of Reality as landscapes
> >
> > 1. Space and coincident megaspace (empty)
> >
> > 2. Physical Matter (sparse)
> >
> > 3. Frictionless fluid of superpartners (quite dense around 
galaxies)
> >
> > 4,5,6. Three sets of stationary compactified phase space
> > With 6 orthogonal spins at each point
> > Each set carrying different levels of information
> >  (very dense everywhere in the universe)
> >
> > 7. And below that, virtual space (perhaps an even denser 
collection  
> > of virtual particles)
> >
> > V. Quantum Mechanics of the Landscapes
> >
> > The Uncertainty Principle teaches us that
> > Virtual particles exist in Planck-sized point volumes
> > And in even smaller point volumes, the unified field
> >
> > These virtual particles allow for the transfer of energy
> > from the wave function to the particle (e.g., photon to electron)
> > during wave function collapse.
> > The likelihood of any point in space collapsing the wave function
> > is a random process weighted by the amplitude of the wave function
> > because virtual particles are randomly generated
> >
> > According to the Conway-Kochen Theorem quantum mechanics
> > cannot be deterministic due to the randomness of the virtual  
> > particles.
> > This is called the free will theorem and may be related to  
> > consciousness
> > if consciousness is the ability to make choices
> >
> > But I have always thought that wave functions were consciousness,
> > and it may be that wave functions propagate
> > on the sets of compactified space
> > like it is an aether
> >
> > How could wave functions be consciousness?  When all they can 
do,  
> > as all reason and fundamental geometry coupled with 
electrodynamic  
> > phase conjugate adaptive resonance indicates, is physically 
carry  
> > the information or contents of consciousness from the brain  
> > processed EM sensory fields and the higher order memory fields  
> > through the mind field to the zero-point centers of conscious  
> > perception, and the force of willful intent from the surrounding  
> > zero-point spinergy through the brain to the neuromuscular  
> > system.   Rational argument based on pure geometrical logic, is 
far  
> > more predictive of actual reality, both subjectively and  
> > objectively, than such wildly speculative assumptions.
> >
> > If so, then compactified space (your hyperspace) is consciousness
> > and in addition contains all the structural info to make our 
world  
> > work
> > as you have said. But our visible consciousness is the result of  
> > wave collapse
> > at Planck-sized points of virtual space with the unified (or 
GUT)  
> > field at its center.
> >
> > This cannot be entirely true, since consciousness as pure  
> > subjective awareness, will, qualia, etc) could not be caused by  
> > objective matter or any forms of space time, no matter how 
tenuous  
> > such fields are in hyperspace.  Besides, "wave collapse" 
(whatever  
> > that means in actual reality) is no indication of subjective  
> > consciousness.  Such pure consciousness can only be the 
functional  
> > aspect of the zero-point of absolute space at the center of the  
> > source of all ZPE.  Call it the GUT field if you will -- but it  
> > still remains outside of all physical time and space... Since 
all  
> > conscious awareness, on whatever plane of spatial reality, must  
> > ultimately be referenced to absolute zero.  Even though such zero-
 
> > point is part of the next higher order phase space (through the  
> > wormhole, so to speak).  Thus, we can say that relative to the  
> > absolute zero of the highest order GUT field, the zero-point of 
the  
> > lower (4th) order physical plane has a micro particular metric --
  
> > equivalent to some fraction of the Planck length, if not the 
Plank  
> > length itself (which should be filled with ZPE fields that are  
> > super-symetrically fractally involved, and make up virtual 3D 
space).
> >
> >
> > I believe that to transfer energy from a photon to an electron,
> > or any other gauge particle interaction
> > that the GUT field state must be passed thru
> > as all particles except gravitons are equal in that state.
> >
> > So in my modeling I have derived a subspace of spins (hyperspace)
> > and have pointed out the singularity-like nature of virtual space.
> > (Your absolute space may be my megaspace)
> >
> > Could be -- if your "megaspace" is entirely unconditioned and  
> > exists solely as a source of infinite *Spinergy* outside of all  
> > metric time and space -- capable of birthing infinite spherical  
> > universes parallel to this universe.  I would say, however, that  
> > your megaspace is probably my first Logos of cosmic space.  See:  
> > http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-col_3.jpg
> >
> > In addition Barron's 12d world falls out as the two sets of  
> > compactified space
> > for physical matter and its superpartners.
> > He claims that both sets are needed for wave collapse
> > But that would just be to the GUT level
> > All three sets of compactified space are needed to get to the  
> > unified field
> >
> > As I said before, BEB's 12d world can only be part of the 
physical  
> > level of the 3rd Logos, after it completes its three fractal  
> > iterations...  Since, his psychophysical dimensions would have 
to  
> > refer solely to that 4th level enfoldment of my megaspace after  
> > symmetry breaking.  This is because so called "wave  
> > collapse" (which in my view is a contrived QM term that has 
nothing  
> > to do with awareness) can only occur at the quantum level in 3D  
> > metric space.   But, then BEB has no conception of the fractal  
> > fields of consciousness that exist as ZPE in the hyperspace that  
> > permeates all objective material forms, and links the neurology 
and  
> > other cellular structures of the body directly to zero-point  
> > consciousness through the medium of those mind-memory 
information  
> > carrying fields. The following illustrations explain these field  
> > relationships far better than I can in words.
> > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
> > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg
> >
> >
> > But the unified field is only needed to exchange energy
> > between a graviton and say an electron
> > So maybe the GUT level is sufficient inside the Planck point
> > and 12 dimension compactification is sufficient to run this world
> > in agreement with Barron Burrows
> >
> > Maybe.  But, if so, that might only cover the superficial 
objective  
> > aspects of the world. ;-)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Leon Maurer
> > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > Cc: Philip Benjamin
> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 7:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> >
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 12/21/077:13 AM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
> >
> > WOW, Leon. This contradicts everything you have ever said about  
> > consciousness.
> > What ARE you smokin'
> >
> > "consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) is an emergent  
> > property of neural complexity.  "
> >
> > Don't you ever comprehend what you read in context?
> >
> > That was said in reference to what reductive scientists (like 
you)  
> > believe about consciousness, and the reason why they can't  
> > comprehend the hyperspace reality behind my ABC theory (which is  
> > NOT "reductive" science) -- based on the proposition that  
> > consciousness necessarily must be the fundamental nature of  
> > ubiquitous absolute SPACE in a holographic universe that is  
> > fundamentally electrodynamic in nature.
> >
> > Therefore, all my physics is based on metric space being a 
*plasma*  
> > and gravity being nothing more that an electrostatic force... 
Take  
> > it or leave it, as you will.  If that's "pseudo science" -- then  
> > you might as well throw all the plasma, string and M-brane  
> > physicists in the same boat -- since their theories of cosmology  
> > and cosmogenesis substantially contradict quantum physics, 
standard  
> > model, big bang, inflation, etc.
> >
> > So, I won't waste any more time trying to penetrate your thick 
skull.
> >
> > P.S. I also hope you don't mind my publishing the ABC 
explanations  
> > in these letters, based on your comments, in my forthcoming book.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Leon Maurer
> > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > Cc: Philip Benjamin
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: SUSY Universe
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > I'm also amazed at how little insight you DO have -- when you 
can't  
> > see that the whole SUSY Universe discussed in that paper is more  
> > speculative reductive scientific baloney (or should I say  
> > masturbation) trying to prove that matter alone is the cause of  
> > everything.  They'll keep on going -- like the Energizer rabbit --
  
> > until it gets so complex no one can understand it.  How anyone 
can  
> > even imagine that dark matter has anything to do with  
> > consciousness, without any rational argument that consciousness 
can  
> > even be an epiphenomena of any form of matter, is beyond me.
> >
> > It seems that reductive physicists will reach for any straw to 
try  
> > and maintain their blind belief that matter is primary and  
> > causative.  Now you are even trying to twist the soul into being 
an  
> > epiphenomena of dark matter  -- when the real "soul" can only be  
> > absolute consciousness coupled with the highest order field of  
> > spiritual mind, both of which are totally independent of all 
forms  
> > of physical matter, including the brain -- except that they all  
> > stem from the same fundamental root of primal SPACE that is both  
> > potentially conscious and infinitely energetic as well as eternal.
> >
> > The whole theoretical reductive science game, in spite of  
> > continually ignoring consciousness as the primary cause of all  
> > change, is just coming closer and closer to the ABC model that --
  
> > without all that contrived and renormalized mathematical garbage 
to  
> > justify eliminative materialism -- sees the whole system 
starting  
> > with a fractally involving supersymmetry... With the present 
metric  
> > spacetime universe, after inflation and breaking of symmetry,  
> > evolving out of the image information and energy compacted into  
> > ubiquitous zero point sources of absolute SPACE (acting 
initially  
> > like a BEC "singularity") and subsequently generating particles,  
> > atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, etc., in 
accord  
> > with scientific laws... Followed by the evolution of sentient  
> > beings on a suitable home planet... To ultimately form 
mankind...  
> > And then, continually expanding until all forms eventually  
> > dissipate and resolve back into a higher order supersymmetry...  
> > Until the whole cyclic process repeats on a higher level of  
> > evolution and intelligence based on its gained experience and  
> > knowledge...  With all of it having the ideation of human forms  
> > already built into the holographic image of the entire present  
> > cosmos right from the primal beginning.
> >
> > Thus the whole aim and purpose of the "universe" must be for the  
> > birth and evolution of present mankind -- to fulfill its own  
> > destiny of expanding its own consciousness from one to many and  
> > back to one again -- while gaining infinite experience and  
> > knowledge in the process -- (at no cost to itself,  
> > incidentally ;-)  Whatever the next cycle might portent for  
> > universal consciousness and Mind is beyond the comprehension of 
our  
> > finite minds at this stage of our evolution.
> >
> > Read your own Hindu Bhagavad Gita where Krishna (representing 
the  
> > spirit or consciousness of the primal source -- absolute SPACE)  
> > says, "I create the whole world with one small part of myself 
and  
> > yet remain separate (undiminished)" -- From frontispiece, 
W.Q.Judge  
> > transliteration, Theosophy Company edition.  You might also read  
> > Judge's essay on Chapter 1 
<http://wwwtheosociety.org/pasadena/gita/ 
> > eg1.htm#t2>
> >
> > So, unless we each -- (as an individual conscious mind beings,  
> > realize our inherent nature and who and what we are) -- join up  
> > with it... The joke is on us... And, as the Buddha said, we must  
> > pay the piper and suffer for our own ignorance. :-[  Well that's  
> > too bad for those that follow the false prophets and lose it 
along  
> > the way.
> >
> > So, maybe you should read deeper into the theosophical teachings  
> > and find out what the human "soul" really is, and why the 
universe  
> > has to evolve in the general direction that ultimately results 
in  
> > human beings on earth having to work out their own individual 
karma  
> > -- or to its living hell be damned... Since the universal  
> > consciousness couldn't give a hoot what happens to the pieces of  
> > its worthless and expendable matter while they churn around  
> > gathering infinite degrees of possible experiences that,  
> > individually, don't amount to anything more than tempests in a  
> > teapot to the global consciousness witnessing it all.  But, 
enough  
> > philosophizing...
> >
> > For a picture of how this universal evolutionary cycle 
transforms  
> > from absolute spatial supersymmetry to hyperspatial symmetry, 
then  
> > to total material (metric spacial) asymmetry, to ultimately 
reverse  
> > through symmetry back to the original supersymmetry -- to repeat  
> > the dual cycle over again on a higher level of informational  
> > knowledge and experience -- see: http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/ 
> > uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html
> >
> > The notes on this diagram need some revision, but nevertheless, 
the  
> > symbolic diagram shows the stages or phases and cycles of  
> > involution and evolution correctly. All we have to do is realize  
> > that holographic information is paramount and precedes all forms 
of  
> > matter, and that consciousness is a fundamental quality of 
Absolute  
> > SPACE that is timeless, dimensionless, and everywhere hidden in 
the  
> > center of the hyperspatial information carrying fields 
encircling  
> > each potentially (sensorially) conscious zero-point of absolute  
> > SPACE in the vastness of metric space-time.  Thus, 
supersymmetry,  
> > superstrings, supergravity leads to symmetry, strings, gravity,  
> > leads to asymmetry, particles, strong and electroweak forces,  
> > etc. ... All, consisting of light matter-energy and two mirrored  
> > dark matter-energies, existing as separate and independent  
> > holograms at perpendicular angles of spin, having their own  
> > parallel natures, experiences and potential consciousness. And,  
> > except for a common ± gravity -- totally invisible and 
dynamically  
> > unconnected to each other -- but part of the same overall space-
time.
> >
> > Keeping in mind the holographic nature of everything (and the  
> > analogy and correspondence between all systems governed by the 
laws  
> > of cycles)... Consider that all forms of nature (in our light  
> > matter universe) are the evolving image expressions of nothing 
but  
> > pure information (intelligence)... And, notice that the human 
race  
> > in its present state of evolution (analogous to the overall 
cosmic  
> > evolution) is only at the middle of its V (fifth) root racial  
> > cycle.  At this point, its collective knowledge of overall 
reality  
> > would be just beginning to emerge, as consciousness slowly 
begins  
> > to understand its creative dominion over matter... And yet, as  
> > individual self reflective beings, we still don't know how to 
unify  
> > and control or guide matter's evolution without creating  
> > continuously repetitive disorder, based on 
conflictive "scientific"  
> > or empirical thinking, motivated by selfishness... Which, due to  
> > ignorance of our real nature, results in periodic rising and  
> > falling of social and economic systems... All of which are  
> > inevitably flawed by their separatist materialistic viewpoint --  
> > whether religious or secular... With all of it stemming from the  
> > basic blind belief that each man is his brain-body and 
identifies  
> > with it... When, in reality, they are each nothing more than 
pure  
> > consciousness (mind beings) along with the accumulated 
experiential  
> > information it has gathered around itself since it first 
awakened  
> > at the primal beginning of this universal cycle as an individual  
> > zero-point ray of the cosmic consciousness coupled with the  
> > analogous fields of its triune higher mind (monad).
> >
> > I wonder if anyone who reads my ABC hypothesis has even gotten 
the  
> > slightest inkling of the underlying hyperspace reality that  
> > actually exists...     Although, I understand how difficult it 
is  
> > to look at things from the bottom up or inside out... 
Especially,  
> > after convincing oneself that the only way to comprehend the 
world,  
> > or anything in it, is to reductively analyze it from the top 
down  
> > or outside in... With that method based on the self-conditioned  
> > false belief that the whole must be the sum of its parts, that  
> > matter is the only reality, that everything exists separate from  
> > everything else , and that consciousness (awareness, will, 
qualia,  
> > etc.) is an emergent property of neural complexity.
> >
> > Oh well, as Alfred Newman said, "What me worry?"  That's their  
> > problem -- along with every other reductive scientific thinker 
who  
> > can't see the forest for the trees, or realize that the egg and 
the  
> > chicken can't exist independently of each other. :-)
> >
> > Have a happy holiday season,
> >
> > Leon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> > On Dec 15, 2007, at 12/15/071:37 PM, HELEN CHENEY wrote:
> >
> > I found the reference for the  SUSY Universe I mentioned  
> > previously. My model of reality has such a universe as the  
> > particles of Dark Matter. Our universe was coupled to a SUSY  
> > universe during the Big Bang in order to create fermions 
according  
> > to superstring theory and they are still coupled at least by  
> > gravity now. An additional local coupling would be necessary for  
> > something like a soul consciousness to exist in Dark Matter, as  
> > suggested by OBE and NDE, and by reincarnation as well as 
revelation.
> >
> > Clavelli's SUSY universe seemingly has the structure necessary 
to  
> > support intelligent life that a medium of axions-only lacks. We  
> > might argue that axions provide the required coupling. But 
because  
> > of Bars papers on Two Time physics, which eliminates the need 
for  
> > axions (no CP violation) and suggests the existence of a 
megaspace  
> > (also suggested by the work of Lisa Randall solving the 
heirarchy  
> > problem), super cosmic reality is likely a great number of 
paired  
> > SUSY and false vacuum (3D+T) universes embedded a (3D+T') 
megaverse  
> > in which essentially only gravity exists.
> >
> > The megaspace model is not necessary for purposes of 
understanding  
> > the soul. But something like a medium containing atoms and  
> > molecules of supersymmetric particles that couple to our 
physical  
> > particles is necessary. Perhaps the coupling can be found in 
Bars  
> > (4D+2T) theory, the prototype of a megaverse theory. Or since 
they  
> > are coupled by gravity, perhaps Higgs particles re-couple the  
> > ordinary and superymmetric particles with a force stronger than  
> > gravity.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Clavelli "Properties of a future susy universe"
> > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0508/0508207v2.pdf
> >
> >  It looks to me as though this universe, if it could coexist with 
a  
> > broken symmetry universe, which is the one we live in, would 
have  
> > all the properties          required for a soul to exist in. The  
> > properties sound very much like the descriptions I have read in  
> > Theosophy about how the soul is rearranged into spherically  
> > symmetric entities after death and how atoms are strongly red- 
> > shifted. Atoms from Hydrogen to Oxygen are stable so DNA can 
exist  
> > for example. Atoms are nuclei with up to two "fermionic 
electrons"  
> > surrounded by a cloud of selectrons.
> >
> > Well, look at that. That's the coupling. The supersymmetric 
atoms  
> > contain ordinary electrons. It's an EM coupling, not Higgs. Is  
> > there evidence for bioelectrons associated with the biophotons?
> >
> > Sometimes I am amazed at how little insight I have. The message 
has  
> > to be right in front of my nose and I still did not get it until  
> > this instant. I wonder if it will fly.
> >
> > Richard
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Philip Benjamin
> > To: HELEN CHENEY
> > Cc: leonmaurer
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:44 PM
> > Subject: RE: BEC axion medium
> >
> > Richard Letter 3
> >
> > The recent exp result that neurons contain EM fields that are 5  
> > times more intense than a lightning bolt reminds me of some of  
> > Leon's insights. That level of intensity is likely to come from 
the  
> > ZPE of the false vacuum. SED theory suggests that QM comes from 
ZPE  
> > as well as inertial mass. I suspect that ZPE, (which BTW is not 
a  
> > property of the SS universe, that is it's zero, a true vacuum),  
> > somehow comes form the megaspace and is relevant to Leon's 
insight  
> > about the source of consciousness. But I wish Leon would remove 
the  
> > layers of seeming scientific terminology with which he hides his  
> > insight.
> > _________________________
> >
> > What does this intensity mean in practical terms? How long it  
> > lasts? What exactly can it do to generate self-awareness? Or  
> > Computations? Or Cognition? I came aross a speed of over 200 
miles/ 
> > hour for the breath/blast of sneezing!!!  All these insights and  
> > imaginations are useful, only if they can be yoked to an 
observable  
> > or perceivable REALITY. How can you solve a "REAL" problem with 
an  
> > imaginary solution.
> >
> >
> > Letter 2
> > Have you seen Hammeroff's latest about the pilot/autopilot. He  
> > talks of a web. That makes sense to me as something macroscopic  
> > that could be in quantum coherence or entangled. There may be a 
web  
> > of microtubles. Stuart talked of a dentrite and an axon web.
> > ___________________
> >
> > Yes, he was kind enough to reply me also. He has done a lot in 
this  
> > field. But is he getting anywhere? Why should a WEB of 
microtubules  
> > create anything other than what it is programed to do? What is 
new  
> > about axon-net work? Why should one be Pilot and the other auto- 
> > pilate? Is it wishful thinking?
> >
> > Letter 1
> > I too used to work in phase conjugate adaptive optics at 
Adaptive  
> > Optics Associates now owned by United Technology. Our work was  
> > secret and predated the open literature papers. In 1975 I got 
the  
> > govt (DARPA) to declassify a paper because they wanted the USSR 
to  
> > increase their funding of space BMD and I became famous for a 
few  
> > days for my paper said that you could propagate an unlimited 
amount  
> > of laser power to space. Of course it was all a spoof. Star Wars  
> > was a bluff, which I exposed when they got serious about its de- 
> > loyment in 1987. It was inherently vulnerable. As a result 
Teller  
> > and Canavan invented (they claim) the Brilliant Pebbles system  
> > which is not vulnerable. Also as a result Henry Kendall lost his  
> > life in a suspicious scuba accident. I had been warned that my 
life  
> > was in danger, but Henry got credit for stopping the deployment.
> > _____________________
> >
> >   These are real conscious experiences. You are only describing 
the  
> > experience part. The "Conscious" side must have an explanation.  
> > Hologram, resonance, ZPE, entanglement may all be part of this  
> > experience.  Physicists including Penrose are making a serious  
> > mistake if they get themselves            "boxed" in. When the 
box  
> > is Eastern Mysticism, one can easily get addicted to it much the  
> > same way as drug addiction. That will not help to progress. The  
> > Eastern mind is very brilliant- a genetic composite of diverse  
> > elements. But sience could not begin and grow there at all. That 
is  
> > the problem with all addictions. It is unreal and science is real.
> >
> > Consciousness as a nebulous, amorphous,invisible, unidentified  
> > something which is not a THING is not worth pursuing. We have a  
> > well studied EM field. Could there be a parallel non-EM bio-
world?  
> > Some of these para normal phenomena reports seem genuine-NDE etc. 
I  
> > used to avoid them, because there is so much else to read. That 
is  
> > how I missed your web site. Especially, I  take those Ghost 
stories  
> > with a ton of salt.
> >
> > Consciousness must be a TOTAL BODY phenomenon. It must be 
invisble  
> > and permeating (NON-EM), intransient (NON-ENTROPIC).  
Restricting  
> > it to any specific ANATOMY is a big mistake. Once it was the 
penial  
> > gland, then the Eccles gate, then the microtubules, etc have 
gotten  
> > nowhere. You have to bring everything into the confines of the 
body  
> > and entangled with it. Biophotons also must be factored into. 
The  
> > very fact that Plants are so profuse in biophotons, (animals 
less  
> > and humans the least) is an importnt data so far omitted.
> >
> > Happy Christmas & Happy Holidays
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> > From: HELENDRUMS@...
> > To: medinuclear@...
> > CC: leonmaurer@...
> > Subject: Re: BEC axion medium
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:58:15 -0500
> >
> >
> > Phillip & Leon,
> >
> > Yes. It seems like something I would write. What stopped me from  
> > forging ahead was the seeming lack of structure in an axion BEC.  
> > And then exp investigations that should have detected the axion  
> > failed.
> >
> > OTOH, the Russians claim to detect microleptons (ie. axions) and  
> > developed a quantum theory of information based on it.
> >
> > But then Bars comes along with his 2 T physics that eliminates 
the  
> > need for the axion.
> >
> > In addition to all this, the possibility of a supersymmetric  
> > universe that is not a false vacuum with a rich structure of  
> > elements up          to at least carbon strikes me as the 
obvious  
> > location of what is called heaven, but I would just call it  
> > supernatural. BTW_ I have temporally lost the link to the SS  
> > universe papers.
> >
> > Dark Matter is then this SS universe, one that pervades our  
> > universe. My speculation is that physical processes in our 
physical  
> > universe including consciousness are somehow imprinted on the SS  
> > universe. Leon would say it in the opposite direction.
> >
> > But then Garrett Lisi comes along with his E8 theory which does  
> > away with the need for supersymmetry. It seems that whenever you  
> > think you have found a theoretical location for supernatural  
> > experience, it soon disappears, theoretically.
> >
> > BTW, Bars was one of the first, if not the first, to suggest 
that  
> > E8 could be the unification theory of everything way back in 
1980  
> > at          Yale even before supersymmetry came along and 
converted  
> > most physicists into string believers.
> >
> > So I see Bars as way ahead of the crowd. Like I said in my last  
> > email, Bars theory could verify Mitchell's claim of a quantum  
> > hologram that stores the history of all physical objects and it  
> > seems to verify Maldecena's conjecture.
> >
> > Anyway, it seems to be no need for axions.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > PS. The recent exp result that neurons contain EM fields that are 
5  
> > times more intense than a lightning bolt reminds me of some of  
> > Leon's insights. That level of intensity is likely to come from 
the  
> > ZPE of the false vacuum. SED theory suggests that QM comes from 
ZPE  
> > as well as inertial mass. I suspect that ZPE, (which BTW is not 
a  
> > property of the SS universe, that is it's zero, a true vacuum),  
> > somehow  comes form the megaspace and is relevant to Leon's 
insight  
> > about the source of consciousness. But I wish Leon would remove 
the  
> > layers of seeming scientific terminology with which he hides his  
> > insight.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Philip Benjamin
> > To: Ruquist, Richard
> > Cc: leonmaurer
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:57 AM
> > Subject: BEC axion medium
> >
> >
> > Richard:
> >
> >  I just found this:
> >
> > "Briefly, if the BEC axion medium exists, it is the likely site 
of  
> > quantum consciousness. The fundamental postulate is that  
> > consciousness is of a quantum nature. Since room temperature 
BECs  
> > are not likely, our physical consciousness is not of a quantum  
> > nature, but is driven by the axion quantum consciousness. Words 
and  
> > will are used to collapse the invisible axion waves into visible  
> > arrays of axion particles that we perhaps see directly in the 
dream  
> > or OBE state; and which in turn can excite energized physical  
> > membrane dipoles in the awake state."
> >
> > Do you recognize this?  If you do, why not proceed ahead? Why 
stop  
> > here?  Chalmers/Hameroff/Penrose did not get anyehre.
> >
> > Philip
> >
> > =
> >
> > Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn 
more. =
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>