Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00602)

Theosophists,

I thought you all might be interested in this dialogue with a member of a 
scientific e-mail discussion group questioning my arguments for a 
multidimensional holistic hyperspace metaphysical universe based on the 
assumption of the unity of all things -- that was practically lifted verbatim 
from the Secret Doctrine. It is followed by a theosophically pertinent 
comment by another scientist.

Hope you find it useful and, possibly, enlightening.

LHM 

In a message dated 01/13/03 4:03:18 AM, bill.adams@bainbridge.net writes:

>Leon Maurer asks if there are any flaws in his reasoning that defines
>mind as a product of nonconventional but "legal" physical concepts. It
>seemed to me a sincere request.
>
>I'm afraid I am not up to date on exotic physical concepts like
>superstrings, M-branes and spinergy. So I can't comment on the logic
>that connects those concepts.
>
>However, I can point out an area where the persuasiveness of the
>argument could be improved. Leon's first paragraph and apparently core
>proposition is that "... all matter is fundamentally force in motion
>acting on space. And that all forms of matter or mass/energy are,
>therefore, different complexities of the interactions of force on space.
>(Thus, force could be considered as the primal "substance" that is the
>noumena of phenomenal matter.) Since, mind also is the result of force
>acting on space, then mind would also be an aspect of substance or
>phenomenal matter." 
>
>I am recalling high school physics, but isn't "force" the influence that
>produces a change in motion of a body? Force is only defined in terms
>of inertia of a body. So the phrase "force in motion acting on space" is
>just word salad for me. 

The picture I have of metric "space" prior to its appearance as mass/energy 
or what we commonly label "matter," is its constant motion of energy in the 
zero-point vacuum within the Planck distance. If we regress this 
vacuum-space to the non dimensional point source of its fundamental motion, 
it can only be understood as the angular momentum or "spinergy" of that 
zero-point singularity. This "spinergy" or primal "force," twisting (or 
acting on) primal space (the ubiquitous zero-point) is the fundamental root 
of all subsequent mind/matter/energy. 

Unfortunately, when one tries to explain such inductive metaphysical 
abstractions using the common language of reductive science, for purposes of 
deducing subsequent involutional and evolutionary physical processes, it 
requires much imagination to get past the "word salad" barrier. :-) 

In the standard view, prior to this expression of space as 3-dimensional 
linear motion, or mass-energy -- this force, upon emanation or radiation out 
of the zero-point singularity, would inflate outward to the extreme limit of 
the Cosmos and generate initial fields of near infinite frequency/energy that 
geometrically must appear as triple cycle fields that would nest (like twin 
bubbles within a bubble) as two spherical fields within a surrounding field 
having a cross section of a figure 8 within a 0. If we follow the line of 
initial force "ray" or "string" as it emanates out of the zero-point center 
in any direction and follow its initial 3-cycle spiral path, we see that this 
energy flow is continuous -- repeatedly circling around the outer and inner 
circumferences and spiraling in and out of the central point. Thus, we can 
say that the initial force is "acting on primal space" by causing it to bend 
into the triple fields described. 

This accounts for the statement that the initial force or the non linear spin 
motion or "spinergy" of the (linear) motionless or "inertial" zero-point is 
the primal "substance" that is the noumena of phenomenal matter. We might 
then say that the zero-point itself is the root of "inertia" as well as the 
basis of awareness and will -- both of which require an absolute reference 
point of origin and destination. 

To make this picture complete, we have to assume that the positive spinergy 
that results in positive cosmic energy -- in order to balance and fulfill the 
laws of conservation and symmetry -- must rest on an equal and opposite 
spinergy that is a negative force. This could correspond to the "dark matter" 
of current quantum cosmological theories. Thus, the initial force of gravity 
in the zero-point, that eventually evolves into the four forces (positive 
gravity, strong, weak and electrical forces) of our metric space-time, is 
both attractive and repulsive or centripetal and centrifugal. Thus, 
awareness requires energy coming in to the zero-point, while will requires 
energy going out from that point. (So, there is a purpose for "dark matter" 
in the universe, after all.) 

Of course, this is only the first stage of the material expansion and 
involution of the Cosmos, since the emanated spinning energy is continually 
spiraling vortically into smaller and smaller triune fields or Monads... 
Until, after a series of harmonic (octaval) frequency/energy phase changes, 
our metric or physical space time continuum would appear (as "the big bang"). 
After the initial appearance and subsequent microwave inflation of this final 
low frequency/energy phase, the space-time symmetry would break and the 
expansion and evolution of our metric universe would commence, starting from 
spinning galaxies down through spinning solar systems, to spinning planets, 
to whirling dervishes, spiraling DNA, and twisted viruses, etc., etc. 
(Doesn't that make your head spin. :-)

>If you could define how you are using terms like force, motion, inertia,
>body, space, etc., then it might be possible for an ordinary person like
>me to understand what you mean and therefore to evaluate your argument.

Having defined all that above, I might go on to say that if we assume that 
the first triple field of Cosmogenesis contains within it the root of 
consciousness, mind, and matter, then it is obvious that the "body" of both 
mind and matter was there from the beginning, even prior to the birth of our 
phenomenal metric universe. (I could also say "material" universe, since 
everything emanating from the zero point spinergy is substantial, including 
mind -- which is also "matter") Therefore, the only mind independent reality 
there can be, is the reality of the zero-point itself -- which, however, is 
non existent without its accompanying spinergy. Therefore, it must be 
directly linked to matter. Consequently, while we can say that mind is 
material, we cannot say that there is any "thing" that can be a MIR -- since 
mind, matter, awareness, and will were, all four aspects of "reality," bound 
together there, right from the get go.

>Assuming that you could define your primitive terms in compatibility
>with generally-accepted physical concepts, I would still have a problem
>with your last sentence above. No matter what you think "force" is, you
>would have to justify the claim that mind is a result of it. I would not
>accept that claim without some sort of explanation, reasons, arguments,
>or evidence, because it just restates the thesis of eliminative
>materialism. 

I think my above description of zero-point force, as spin, as energy, as 
mass, as mind, as matter, etc., is a logical description of the most probable 
source of all material phenomena, including, mind/matter as well as 
consciousness or awareness and will -- which could logically be attributed to 
the static zero-point itself. For example, we can argue that consciousness 
requires a stationary base to determine relative time, distance, velocity, 
acceleration, frequency, force, energy, mass, etc. Since our point of visual 
awareness is stationery with respect to the body, for example -- all outer 
motion relative to that stationery observer (regardless of the motion of the 
body) can be calculated as an absolute value of changing coordinates using 
the inertial base of that point of consciousness as a prime reference. Thus, 
the point can be considered as absolutely inertial relative to the motion 
observed. If this were not the case, the ball player could never catch that 
high fly.

We could go even further and logically use this fundamental model of reality 
to explain all the unanswered questions and hard problems of consciousness 
study, as well as derive a unified field theory of everything by correlating 
this model with Bohm's theory of implicate and explicate orders, Einstein's 
special and general theories of relativity and photoelectricity, Heisenberg's 
indeterminacy, Barrow's psychophysics, Feynman's quantum chromodynamics, 
Pribam's holographic universe, Green's Superstring/M-brane theory, etc., 
etc., etc.

If such an idea can make sense to a layman, it certainly should give some 
clever young scientist enough incentive to assemble all the currently known 
and proven theories of physical science and come up with both the necessary 
equations and some suitable experimental research projects that would include 
both subjective and objective data, to arrive at a final unified field theory 
of everything. Anybody out there have some grad students looking for a 
thesis that could win a Nobel? ;-) 

Respectfully,

Leon Maurer
Some more food for thought
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html

>Sincerely,
>
>bill.adams@bainbridge.net
>http://members.bainbridge.net/~bill.adams/

In a message dated 01/20/03 5:02:40 AM, landre@highstream.net writes:

>Interesting, interesting!
>
>Almost a week ago Jim Newell suggested that there may exist an Absolute
>Consciousness as a field that:
>(1) is everywhere (and at all times, I might add),
>(2) integrates information in all brains, and
>(3) usually makes conscious in individual brains not only individual 
>information, but occasionally also non-individual information.
>
>So far, nobody has seriously challenged this proposition. What I find 
>fascinating is that this view is exactly what Advaita Vedanta teaches. It 
>proclaims that, when reflecting long enough on the question of who I am,
>I will find this "field" of Absolute Consciousness as my ultimate identity.
>
>John K. Landre