The Oneness
Posted 08-04-2020 at 02:21 PM by MysticPhD
The Oneness is the unified field in which ALL manifestations of our Reality exist. The reason I harp on the falsity of reductionist materialism as representing our Reality is that the most revolutionary aspect of quantum mechanics is the fact that the existence of material "particles" is no longer supportable. CB has presented the wooish version of Reality from the Vedas. I shall endeavor to provide an introductory level explanation of what is a very complex area of science and philosophy that produced the Big Bang and Big Crunch theories by explaining the ACTUAL composition of our Reality (so nit-pickers hold your tongues. If I have gone too basic, do not take offense. I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence. I have no idea what level to start from).
DeBroglie attributed a vibratory nature to matter and Planck assigned a corpuscular character to radiation. If both Einstein's and Planck's equations are valid, and they have been found so in virtually every physical arena, then E=h*frequency and E=M*C-Squared mean that M*C-Squared and h*frequency represent the SAME underlying phenomenon in our Reality just measured differently. Unfortunately, our current mathematics fails to accurately represent the hypothesized wave interference derivations of "particle" creation because an expanding "beat" seems unavoidable in Schroedinger's wave function. This anomaly in the mathematical representation is used to justify retaining a "particle" orientation.
It is my belief that we will need a breakthrough in mathematics as profound as the calculus was to resolve these two different ways (macro and micro) of representing reality mathematically. Essentially, quantum theory has eliminated the idea that electrons revolving around the nucleus were in specified orbits that were not subject to the rules of general electromagnetic theory. It also asserts that "particles" (quanta) of matter are endowed, like light, with wavelike properties. (The theory is considerably more complex than this, but this should be a start.
Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is the unified field (Oneness). It is merely stratified into different manifestatons - "states of energy/mass/momentum." The separation of these states is determined by the relation of their composite vibratory "speeds" to each other. As a vibratory composite, that means the sinusoidal back and forth (round trip) of its frequency exists at the square of the vibratory "speed" that comprises it. To understand the philosophical significance of this, we must abandon our basic notion of "speed" as a characteristic of getting somewhere. Speed can help illustrate relativity and will be useful in simplifying the concept if you do not take it too literally and use your imagination intelligently.
You can visualize the relativistic nature of matter and energy by imagining the passing of a tremendously fast automobile close to you on the highway. If you are stationary, the car as it passes will be an invisible blur, in essence, pure motive energy. Now picture yourself on the same highway in another car travelling at an identical speed. The other car will now be a solid object to your eyes, not a blur of energy.
Philosophically, the underlying phenomenon of material matter (or mass) can be thought of as energy "decelerated" (like a traffic jam) from the square of the sinusoidal "speed" of light, eg., M= E/C-Squared. Conversely, energy is mass "accelerated" to the square of the sinusoidal "speed" of light. This is Einstein's famous equation interpreted in words, eg., E=MC-Squared.
All matter is in continuous vibratory molecular motion. The overall composite "speed" of this molecular motion (density of the traffic jam) determines the state we view it in. All our visible matter is that which is traveling at relatively the same range of molecular "speed" that our bodies are. This is the normal range of molecular activity as it contains those energy states that we can sense as solids or composite entities. This is a limitation of our bodily senses. Our senses are limited by the "speed" of the composite molecular activity that comprises their very existence.
We are not equipped to sense as a composite any substance that exists at the sinusoidal square of the speed of light. When the composite "speed" of molecular activity reaches the square of the speed of light, it becomes pure energy to us because it exceeds the normal range. Essentially, those things with composite molecular activity at similar "speed" to ours are the living forms of substance, both animate and inanimate. Animate life forms are the ones whose composite molecular speed is identical to ours. Inanimate life forms are slower, but still living. The things whose composite molecular "speeds" are so slow relative to ours that they appear immobile are the lifeless (inorganic) forms. (No pedantic nitpicking of the analogies allowed!)
The forms of substance with composite molecular "speed" faster than ours appear less and less solid, from the fluid and gaseous states to the "speed" range designated as energy. As long as the composite molecular "speed" of our body and senses remains fixed, we can never see the fastest substance as anything but a blur of energy. In other words, solid matter and energy are NOT different phenomena. They are IDENTICAL manifestations of the Oneness (unified field), which is a primary source of confusion in our mathematical depictions.
As Einstein posited, energy/mass/momentum are equvalent manifestaions of the unfifed field. The only difference is their relative range of vibratory "speed" on either side of our composite molecular speed. The harder a substance is to our senses, the slower is its composite molecular speed in relation to ours. The less solid a substance is to our senses, the faster its composite molecular speed is to ours. Energy is the term we use to describe substance in the composite molecular "speed" range that we can no longer sense as a whole in this timespace. This does not mean it is any less "substantial."
The inclusion of momentum in the above may cause many of you to have difficulty reconciling the equivalence of energy/mass/momentum because we usually see energy as a power source that should be used to accomplish something. In fact, ever since we acquired the ability to create fire, the results associated with this phenomenon have been considered destructive and wasteful, unless the energy was used in some way. The normal opinion is that any substance that is burned is destroyed, when in actuality the process of burning is merely the chemical acceleration of energy from its current "slow" form to several alternate "faster" forms of energy, especially light and heat (infra-red radiation).
The easiest result of this acceleration to comprehend is the ash that remains after a solid has been burned. It is quite obviously less dense (less of a traffic jam) than the original substance, indicating faster composite molecular "speed." Therefore, it should be a simple matter to accept the fact that the original substance was merely "speeded" up to less dense form. So too, it is not difficult to accept that the various gases and vapors are even faster (even less dense) forms of the original substance. (I again caution you not to overthink the analogies.)
Light and heat, on the other hand, cause many to struggle unsuccessfully with the abstraction that they are simply faster forms of the original substance because they do not consider them substance at all. Similarly, while we experience consciousness as a "substantive state," (our Self) we do not consider it "substance" either. However, our consciousness is both substantive and "substance," since it exists in the unified field (Oneness) within which our perceptions (observations and measurements) of our experienced reality exist. Without it, we would not experience anything.
The major obstacle to understanding the equation of consciousness with energy, hence "substance," arises from the most commonly used forms of energy, e.g. physical activity or potential physical activity reflected in momentum or motion. Kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, elastic potential energy, all dilute the abstraction of energy because they, like light and heat, cannot be thought of as substance. Another overly-simplified explanation of motion in timespace might help to clarify some of this.
Motion is a complex phenomenon because of its inexorable link with the complex notion of time-space. As Reichenbach suggested,
. . . Space is completely filled by the field that defines its metrics; what we have hitherto called material bodies are only condensations of this field. It makes no sense to speak of a movement of material parts as a transport of things; what takes place is a traveling process of condensation comparable to the movement of a wave in water.
At this point, a simple experiment with buttons may help to correct the basic misunderstanding of motion as energy. If you cannot visualize it, find several small white buttons and one large black one and try it. Arrange the white buttons so that the black button is in the center of a white square. You now have a simplified two-dimensional universe with the different size and color buttons representing different localized quantities of the basic substance: buttons. Make sure all the buttons are as close together as possible so that moving one moves the others next to it.
Now, try to move the position of the black button in this mini-universe up from the center without creating a space or hole. You will have to keep all the buttons together. For example, slide up the buttons on the bottom of the square directly under the black button. All the buttons in that area will move up and some will bulge out the top of the square, but the black button will be moved. In order to retain the square shape of the universe you will have to remove those buttons bulging out the top and add them to the dent in the bottom. Only in that way does your universe's structure (square) remain unchanged.
This two-dimensional analogy simplistically illustrates the basic operation of our universe. In order to "move" substance from its current position in the universe to another position we had to "add and remove" equal amounts of our "measured" buttons, the basic substance of this mini-universe. In our universe, the "measured" basic substance is energy, and it must be added and removed in equal amounts to achieve "motion" in our universe as well. The essential concept is the same. To change the "position" of any substance in the universe, substance must be taken from another part of the continuum and added in place of the substance moved. It is on this principle that the law of the conservation of energy rests. It is also this unified interdependence of every manifestation in our Reality that underlies the Oneness I and Arach refer to.
Naturally, our universe is four-dimensional and considerably more complex and flexible. Unlike buttons, the larger more dense substances can be broken down into smaller ones and the smaller ones can be grouped together into denser ones. The measurement of these densities is the mass we have been referring to and the limitations of that measurement add to our confusion in understanding energy as substance. I hope these analogies will help some of you address the following kinds of questions about the Oneness that are often raised in religious discussions,
How much energy, exactly, is a composite thought? Or love? Are virtues made up of energy? What about light? Is light immaterial? How much energy comprises our cumulative Self? What happens to the cumulative consciousness energy (our Self) that we have produced during our lifetime? What could possibly transform our cumulative consciousness energy into some other manifestation after our physical death?
DeBroglie attributed a vibratory nature to matter and Planck assigned a corpuscular character to radiation. If both Einstein's and Planck's equations are valid, and they have been found so in virtually every physical arena, then E=h*frequency and E=M*C-Squared mean that M*C-Squared and h*frequency represent the SAME underlying phenomenon in our Reality just measured differently. Unfortunately, our current mathematics fails to accurately represent the hypothesized wave interference derivations of "particle" creation because an expanding "beat" seems unavoidable in Schroedinger's wave function. This anomaly in the mathematical representation is used to justify retaining a "particle" orientation.
It is my belief that we will need a breakthrough in mathematics as profound as the calculus was to resolve these two different ways (macro and micro) of representing reality mathematically. Essentially, quantum theory has eliminated the idea that electrons revolving around the nucleus were in specified orbits that were not subject to the rules of general electromagnetic theory. It also asserts that "particles" (quanta) of matter are endowed, like light, with wavelike properties. (The theory is considerably more complex than this, but this should be a start.
Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is the unified field (Oneness). It is merely stratified into different manifestatons - "states of energy/mass/momentum." The separation of these states is determined by the relation of their composite vibratory "speeds" to each other. As a vibratory composite, that means the sinusoidal back and forth (round trip) of its frequency exists at the square of the vibratory "speed" that comprises it. To understand the philosophical significance of this, we must abandon our basic notion of "speed" as a characteristic of getting somewhere. Speed can help illustrate relativity and will be useful in simplifying the concept if you do not take it too literally and use your imagination intelligently.
You can visualize the relativistic nature of matter and energy by imagining the passing of a tremendously fast automobile close to you on the highway. If you are stationary, the car as it passes will be an invisible blur, in essence, pure motive energy. Now picture yourself on the same highway in another car travelling at an identical speed. The other car will now be a solid object to your eyes, not a blur of energy.
Philosophically, the underlying phenomenon of material matter (or mass) can be thought of as energy "decelerated" (like a traffic jam) from the square of the sinusoidal "speed" of light, eg., M= E/C-Squared. Conversely, energy is mass "accelerated" to the square of the sinusoidal "speed" of light. This is Einstein's famous equation interpreted in words, eg., E=MC-Squared.
All matter is in continuous vibratory molecular motion. The overall composite "speed" of this molecular motion (density of the traffic jam) determines the state we view it in. All our visible matter is that which is traveling at relatively the same range of molecular "speed" that our bodies are. This is the normal range of molecular activity as it contains those energy states that we can sense as solids or composite entities. This is a limitation of our bodily senses. Our senses are limited by the "speed" of the composite molecular activity that comprises their very existence.
We are not equipped to sense as a composite any substance that exists at the sinusoidal square of the speed of light. When the composite "speed" of molecular activity reaches the square of the speed of light, it becomes pure energy to us because it exceeds the normal range. Essentially, those things with composite molecular activity at similar "speed" to ours are the living forms of substance, both animate and inanimate. Animate life forms are the ones whose composite molecular speed is identical to ours. Inanimate life forms are slower, but still living. The things whose composite molecular "speeds" are so slow relative to ours that they appear immobile are the lifeless (inorganic) forms. (No pedantic nitpicking of the analogies allowed!)
The forms of substance with composite molecular "speed" faster than ours appear less and less solid, from the fluid and gaseous states to the "speed" range designated as energy. As long as the composite molecular "speed" of our body and senses remains fixed, we can never see the fastest substance as anything but a blur of energy. In other words, solid matter and energy are NOT different phenomena. They are IDENTICAL manifestations of the Oneness (unified field), which is a primary source of confusion in our mathematical depictions.
As Einstein posited, energy/mass/momentum are equvalent manifestaions of the unfifed field. The only difference is their relative range of vibratory "speed" on either side of our composite molecular speed. The harder a substance is to our senses, the slower is its composite molecular speed in relation to ours. The less solid a substance is to our senses, the faster its composite molecular speed is to ours. Energy is the term we use to describe substance in the composite molecular "speed" range that we can no longer sense as a whole in this timespace. This does not mean it is any less "substantial."
The inclusion of momentum in the above may cause many of you to have difficulty reconciling the equivalence of energy/mass/momentum because we usually see energy as a power source that should be used to accomplish something. In fact, ever since we acquired the ability to create fire, the results associated with this phenomenon have been considered destructive and wasteful, unless the energy was used in some way. The normal opinion is that any substance that is burned is destroyed, when in actuality the process of burning is merely the chemical acceleration of energy from its current "slow" form to several alternate "faster" forms of energy, especially light and heat (infra-red radiation).
The easiest result of this acceleration to comprehend is the ash that remains after a solid has been burned. It is quite obviously less dense (less of a traffic jam) than the original substance, indicating faster composite molecular "speed." Therefore, it should be a simple matter to accept the fact that the original substance was merely "speeded" up to less dense form. So too, it is not difficult to accept that the various gases and vapors are even faster (even less dense) forms of the original substance. (I again caution you not to overthink the analogies.)
Light and heat, on the other hand, cause many to struggle unsuccessfully with the abstraction that they are simply faster forms of the original substance because they do not consider them substance at all. Similarly, while we experience consciousness as a "substantive state," (our Self) we do not consider it "substance" either. However, our consciousness is both substantive and "substance," since it exists in the unified field (Oneness) within which our perceptions (observations and measurements) of our experienced reality exist. Without it, we would not experience anything.
The major obstacle to understanding the equation of consciousness with energy, hence "substance," arises from the most commonly used forms of energy, e.g. physical activity or potential physical activity reflected in momentum or motion. Kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, elastic potential energy, all dilute the abstraction of energy because they, like light and heat, cannot be thought of as substance. Another overly-simplified explanation of motion in timespace might help to clarify some of this.
Motion is a complex phenomenon because of its inexorable link with the complex notion of time-space. As Reichenbach suggested,
. . . Space is completely filled by the field that defines its metrics; what we have hitherto called material bodies are only condensations of this field. It makes no sense to speak of a movement of material parts as a transport of things; what takes place is a traveling process of condensation comparable to the movement of a wave in water.
At this point, a simple experiment with buttons may help to correct the basic misunderstanding of motion as energy. If you cannot visualize it, find several small white buttons and one large black one and try it. Arrange the white buttons so that the black button is in the center of a white square. You now have a simplified two-dimensional universe with the different size and color buttons representing different localized quantities of the basic substance: buttons. Make sure all the buttons are as close together as possible so that moving one moves the others next to it.
Now, try to move the position of the black button in this mini-universe up from the center without creating a space or hole. You will have to keep all the buttons together. For example, slide up the buttons on the bottom of the square directly under the black button. All the buttons in that area will move up and some will bulge out the top of the square, but the black button will be moved. In order to retain the square shape of the universe you will have to remove those buttons bulging out the top and add them to the dent in the bottom. Only in that way does your universe's structure (square) remain unchanged.
This two-dimensional analogy simplistically illustrates the basic operation of our universe. In order to "move" substance from its current position in the universe to another position we had to "add and remove" equal amounts of our "measured" buttons, the basic substance of this mini-universe. In our universe, the "measured" basic substance is energy, and it must be added and removed in equal amounts to achieve "motion" in our universe as well. The essential concept is the same. To change the "position" of any substance in the universe, substance must be taken from another part of the continuum and added in place of the substance moved. It is on this principle that the law of the conservation of energy rests. It is also this unified interdependence of every manifestation in our Reality that underlies the Oneness I and Arach refer to.
Naturally, our universe is four-dimensional and considerably more complex and flexible. Unlike buttons, the larger more dense substances can be broken down into smaller ones and the smaller ones can be grouped together into denser ones. The measurement of these densities is the mass we have been referring to and the limitations of that measurement add to our confusion in understanding energy as substance. I hope these analogies will help some of you address the following kinds of questions about the Oneness that are often raised in religious discussions,
How much energy, exactly, is a composite thought? Or love? Are virtues made up of energy? What about light? Is light immaterial? How much energy comprises our cumulative Self? What happens to the cumulative consciousness energy (our Self) that we have produced during our lifetime? What could possibly transform our cumulative consciousness energy into some other manifestation after our physical death?
Total Comments 0
