Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00006)

Leon
  I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theory so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be dismembered by the scientific community.
   
  Cass

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
          In a message dated 5/20/07 11:33:56 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string 
> physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a matter 
> of opinion but a consequence of physics.
> 

Yes, and while the rational and symbolic mathematics of string physics 
confirms it -- the actual basis of the multiverse could very well be as follows:

As this universe might reasonably be the result of the radiation on only 
three perpendicularly crossed axes of the primal "G-force" or "spinergy"* 
(infinite angular momentum) circling the zero-point of absolute ground SPACE... That 
triple axis "singularity" would necessarily be repeated infinite times as parts 
of the potentially infinite axes of that essentially spherical zero-point. 
Thus, following the same radiative force field rooted laws as this universe, 
there could be infinite potential universes that can spring out of that primal 
SPACE -- as similar fractally involved, electrodynamically coenergetic fields 
within fields within fields, ad infinitum... Each at different triple axis 
spin angles.

The apparent reason they are invisible to us is that, as two axis of this 
universe could be the root of invisible dark matter, each parallel universe of 
the multiverse spins on similarly different angles of primal SPACE than the 
single axis of spin of the "light" matter in this spacetime universe -- which is 
the subject of quantum physics. 

If this is the true nature of fundamental reality, that would explain why 
conventional reductive physics might never reach a physical explanation of that 
reality -- nor could it ever explain subjective consciousness (awareness, will, 
qualia, etc.) -- which, in this view, would be the inherent subjective aspect 
of the immovable and empty zero-point of absolute space. Nor could it 
explain how the "information" that triggers qualia is transformed and transmitted 
between the points of conscious perception and mind, memory, brain and sensory 
inputs. In this new paradigm, it is explained as holographic wave 
interference patterns frequency modulated on the surfaces of the fractally involved 
electrodynamic fields in metaphysical Planck vacuum or hyperspace and on the 
radiant physical matter fields of brain and body. This information is transformed 
from one field to the next by electridynamic inductive resonance processes.

If that is the basic paradigm of a true universal science, then the 
superstring physics that predicts the multiverse, may be mistaken in presuming that the 
fundamental "membranes" it also predicts, may not be simply the surfaces of 
the triune fractally involved fields of light matter that initially radiated 
out of the primal spinergy at the first moment of the big bang. Such spherical 
surfaces could also be the source of the curvature of space that is also 
"flat" (since its total radii would approach infinity) as predicted by General 
relativity. Also, this multiplicity nature of infinitely divisible primal SPACE 
and its fractally involved fields, would also explain entanglement at the sub 
quantum level, as well as the holographic nature of all matter and 
information of consciousness carried as wave interference patterns by all metaphysical 
and physical fields of matter.

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
* http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

------- Original Message-------

From: yanniru@netscape.net
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of 
other bubble universes

The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string 
physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a matter of 
opinion but a consequence of physics.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jamikes@prodigy.net
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of 
other bubble universes

PtP:
and if the Pope of Rome (personally) subscribes to it?
A 'notion' is assumed. The "if" is either yes, or no, that is the reason why 
it is an 'if'. Scientific decisions are not subject to democratic majority 
votes, not even to the opinion of select 'big names' - I may disagree with 
Newton (ha ha) or E. Kant, and be right or wrong.
I wrote the occurrence of a Multiverse in my narrative myself, on different 
basis/logic and understanding from the physico-cosmological fables and their 
mistakes they include, partly for mathematical matches to equations containing 
numbers of other poorly substantiated assumptions and consequences of such.
If you start to get out from the college brainwash of the contemporary 
classical natural science reductionism, , there is no way to stop - doubt rolls all 
over.
People live with paradoxes and misnomers abound.
Think about it for YOURSELF once. .
John

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pay_the_Piper
> 

To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Moon Balloon
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of 
other bubble universes

I forget where I read it ... maybe New Scientist. Most cosmologists, 
including Hawking subscribe to the notion of a multiverse.
 
PtP
 

----- Original Message -----
From: John M
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; astro@postbiota.org ; Eugen Leitl
Cc: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; Moon Balloon
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of 
other bubble universes

PtP:

you ask a 'scientific' question upon an "if"? And if "if not"? I made up my na
rrative for my common sense, so I left the Tooth Fairy for the other 
"theories". According to my view there are 'infinite' universes and it is hard to 
select ONE that is 'cleverer' than "all infinite others".
E. Leitl wrote smart 'scientific' things, mostly based on sciemntists' 
assumptions that could be continued (just as your above question accepting a 
hypothetical "yes" to your "if"). The phenomenon assumed to be the remnant 
(background) radiation of the allegedly "real" Big Bang is such an "if". And so on, the 
rest of Cosmology etc.
And so is the "inflation" no matter how 'necessary' for keeping the face of 
the equations-related theorists. In valuation of today's physical calculations 
as applied to an incredibly different (physical??? And so is the "inflatio

You feel free to make science upon the unknowable. All 'universes' (alleged 
by MY narrative, never mind that I am not the first one thinking about 
Multiverse - I just asccept the idea because I could not 'justify' a negation) (may 
be) different, which is not a Hi-Lo distinction. DIFFERENT.
We have no way to "understand" anything outside our circle of knowledge base 
even if we fantasize about such. Do other universes have space-time concepts?
(They - including ours - are timeless fulgurations and only WE (maybe not 
exclusively) coordinate our image FROM THE INSIDE VIEW as a space-time system).
Do other universes abide by a logic of the HUMAN mind? Do other universes 
have comparable conditions to our 'physical observations' Do other un
One may build science upon 'if's to all questions.

Best to you and Eugen

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: Pay_the_Piper
To: astro@postbiota.ast ; Eugen Leitl
Cc: MindBrain@yahoogrouMindBr ; Moon Balloon
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other 
bubble universes

truncated

**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

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



         

       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

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