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

Fwd: [Mind and Brain] Re: Philosophical Conceptual Analysis Within Neuroscience

Apr 07, 2009 12:04 PM
by Leon Maurer

I thought this confirmation of my ABC model by an accredited  
physicist might be of interest. (The typographical error at the end  
of my most recent letter is actually a Freudian slip that now strikes  
me as being hilariously funny. LM)

Begin forwarded message:

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

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

[Back to Top]

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