Re: SUSY Universe
Jan 28, 2008 05:28 AM
by christinaleestemaker
www.bnl.gov/NPSS/files/ppt/BarHarbor04A.pps ---
see that other is not working, maybe this one for you
Christina
In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com,
"christinaleestemaker" <christinaleestemaker@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> susy-2005.dur.ac.uk/PARALELLE/UNIFICATION/TUE/Fargion-khlopov-
> Sinister.ppt
>
> I only can see it in a way she creates dark matter herself
>
> Christina
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Semock" <semockr@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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]
> > >
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
