Philosophy? (points, religion, soul, humans)

[old_cold]

Because you don't understand it(neither do I) they should be criticized ?
You've stated twice in this thread that you'd prefer to talk about philosophy rather than religion but that's the extent of your contribution.

[catman]

It makes my head hurt, too, and it's complex, but that doesn't mean it's valueless. Quite interesting, actually. The 'present' is over by the time one can complete a thought about it. A very fast shutter speed can almost catch it.

[allen antrim]

Let me see........ummmmmmmm-is there anybody here interested in discussing philosophy; I think was the original post direction. So two guys begin discussing philosophy and they are accused of attempting to out do each other. No, you sir, is why philosophy is worth nothing because you have to speak, like a bumper sticker, and yet have nothing to say or contribute. Read Socrates first and you will see we move along by questioning. Unfortunately, most of the crap on here moves by opinion and dogmatic assertions like the ones you just posted. So I guess it is all over and we are left with the same ol' flattering each other's crap with out saying anything. Yeah, mutt head philosophy is the rule.

[Chango]

Ah hum.... that's what I get for posting without reading what was going on..

[Dusty Rhodes]

Received my BA, Major in Philosophy from UNC-G. Minors in English, Spanish, Education, and Math. Philosophy is a heavy math and science field of study.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by Chango

Ah hum.... that's what I get for posting without reading what was going on..

We won't condemn you to everlasting fire and brimstone for it

[Chango]

Originally Posted by old_cold

We won't condemn you to everlasting fire and brimstone for it

...which is why philosophy is superior to religion, despite it's (and my) shortcommings.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by allen antrim

I will need more information on how light speed is in on this. What do you mean by "sub-light state"

(GldnRule . . . here is the first installment on my attempt to present a cogent summary of my synthesis on the philosophical side. This thread seems like the place for it.) Allen . . . this should put us all on the same platform in addressing this consciousness stuff philosophically. My first two cuts exceeded the post length . . . and probably the reading patience of even the more philosophical of readers . . . so I have split it into two posts. The second will address the light speed question more directly . . . though you can probably guess where this will be going.

Reality Re-Orientation

This post is primarily for those philosophical individuals who have respect for scientific knowledge and writers but who do not completely dismiss anything to do with God. The early philosophers dealt with God extensively. (In short . . . open-minded scholars). It has been my experience that those most often critical of spiritual things are people who are only somewhat knowledgeable about many of the philosophical and scientific aspects of our reality. But, because a little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing, they frequently make unwarranted and hasty judgments about the validity of beliefs or concepts that have less "scientific" origins. This bias is so potent among scientists that Cosmologist George Smoot felt it necessary to defend his much-quoted remark about what it was like to see the structures in the COBE data, the “wrinkles in time” in our universe. The widespread quoting of his remark apparently was so intellectually embarrassing that he felt compelled to point out that it was merely metaphorical! . He had said,

"If you're religious, it's like seeing God."

Actually, George's one "metaphorical" remark contains more truth than all the other speculations and rationalizations taken together that he and the scientific community have made about his wrinkles in time!

A little reality reorientation is absolutely essential to counteract the effects of such unreasoning bias against consideration of God as a viable component of philosophical understanding. Consequently, I intend to show that there are plausible scientific bases for the assertions that are made in what might otherwise be considered my more "Scripture-based and spiritualistic" arguments.

Unfortunately, it is not feasible to present even a summary of the philosophical implications of contemporary science in a single post. Consequently, a considerable amount of knowledge on the part of the reader has been assumed in the descriptions that follow. Hence the choice of this thread. Consequently, despite my attempts at simplification and analogy, you might find this post a bit tedious and overwhelming.

If you are well-grounded in a particular subject matter you should find my simplifications, analogies and speculations reasonably accurate (if boring) but the implications somewhat provocative. If you are only somewhat knowledgeable, you might want to use the discussion as a stimulus to further study and understanding. If you are not at all knowledgeable about the scientific basis of our reality, you probably don't have any problems accepting the spiritual explanations of human existence, anyway.

From Milic Capek:

. . . It is clear that the future conception of matter ought to be devoid of all sensory qualities, even those . . . present in seemingly abstract mathematical notions. The search for imageless models of matter will become imperative. . . In this search, the observed isomorphism of psychological duration and physical becoming will constitute one of the most significant clues.


Consciousness: Our Link to Infinite Becoming

Our thoughts are the place to begin and end our introspection of our existence. Unfortunately, since thinking is inescapably basic to knowing about the process of thought, it is not thought about as a process to be thought about when thinking of processes to be thought about. I think!

It is usually very difficult to unlock our mind from its conditioned perspective long enough to speculate about the various products of thought, let alone about thought itself.

One exception can be found in the musings of a famous mathematician, Richard Dedekind. He made the following observation about our ability to think and its relationship to our use of mathematics,

. . . If we scrutinize closely what is done in the counting of an aggregate or number of things, we are led to consider the ability of the mind to relate things to things, to let a thing correspond to a thing, or to represent a thing by a thing, an ability without which no thinking is possible. . . So from the time of birth, continually and in increasing measure we are led to relate things to things and thus to use that faculty of the mind on which the creation of numbers depends; by this practice continually occurring, though without definite purpose, in our earliest years and by the attending formation of judgments and chains of reasoning, we acquire a store of real arithmetic truths to which our first teachers later refer as to something simple, self-evident, given in the inner consciousness; and so it happens that many very complicated notions (as for example that of the number of things) are erroneously regarded as simple.

In the various reasoning methods of logic we must relate elements to some basic premise. Even our intuition requires that we be able to relate the current experience to some base experience. Einstein was a remarkably insightful and creative physicist who understood that:

. . . the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

But, as Dedekind so cleverly pointed out, our ability to engage in the phenomenon of thought itself requires a juxtaposition of temporal relations. In other words, the very existence of thought AS A PHENOMENON can be seen to depend upon the possession of a superordinate base of reference to all experiential levels of becoming. We are capable of detecting past and present becomings of this and all subordinate levels of becoming and of abstracting potential becomings beyond our own. For that to be possible, however, we must have access to A BASE OF REFERENCE IN INFINITE BECOMING (our inner consciousness in a non physical substrate).

In plain English, in order to be able to consider the past, the present, and speculate about the future, we need to have the capacity for creating "thoughts." This seemingly obvious conclusion should not be written off without serious consideration of its more profound philosophical implications. It is not simple! It will be addressed in more detail later.

Abstract Human Consciousness. Becoming a human being can be seen to rest irrevocably on becoming an entity capable of creative abstract consciousness -- a unique feature of our brain that is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the conditioned cortical reactions of other animal species. In short, it means becoming capable of thought as we really know it to be, and as distinguished from all other cortical activity in all other life forms, so far as we currently are able to determine.

Most people intuitively know that our human consciousness is unique and does not appear to exist in any other animal on the earth. Our consciousness is markedly different from the awareness that even the most "intelligent" of the animals seems to have of its existence. This is not to minimize the wondrous advances that are happening in our attempts to communicate with other species, where the appearance, at least, of rudimentary cross-species language analogues are being developed.

Concrete Animal Awareness. Animal awareness, like our consciousness, can be very responsive to the environment, but it cannot be abstract. Like humans, many animals can learn from their experiences and influence their future behavior as a result. They even can be conditioned to learn sequences of symbols that produce concrete outcomes, but they cannot form pure abstractions. They cannot develop attitudes or interpret their experiences in abstract fashion.

For example, you cannot insult an animal. An insult is an abstract interpretation of a situation that requires our peculiar brand of consciousness. All debates can be boiled down to this fundamental difference between abstract human consciousness and concrete animal awareness, and no amount of intellectual demagoguery can mask it.

Consciousness: The Fire of Mind

Consciousness has many formal definitions that depend upon each theorist's particular psychological research design or problem, and their preferred beliefs about the human mind. But, when all the intellectual debris is cleared away, it is really a very straightforward and readily understood phenomenon.

Hugh Elliot, a staunch defender of materialism and no friend of spiritualists or mystics, described our mind, the process whereby we become conscious of anything, in the following very clever way,

. . . The mind is the cerebral processes themselves, not an imaginary accompaniment of them. . . . The difficulty of grasping this proposition will be largely mitigated by the fact that there exists a phenomenon from the inorganic world which furnishes a remarkably true and precise analogy to this strange product of the organic world. The phenomenon to which I refer is the phenomenon of fire.

Consciousness is the result of the mental "burning" of energy in the brain cells, and as with any burning, the result is never the same as what originally was burned. This is, at best, the worst of oversimplification. However, it is the fastest way of communicating the general idea.

Two Forms of Energy

Consider the following two descriptions carefully:

Fire, or “burning,” is merely energy change that produces light and heat. Light and heat emanate from the burning of physical substance. Light and heat appear to leave the source, but in the totality of the universe, they remain as energy. The two forms of energy, light and heat, possess different characteristics.

Consciousness, or “thinking,” is merely energy change that produces thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings emanate from the “burning” of mental energy. Our thoughts and feelings appear to leave us, but in the totality of the universe, they continue to exist as energy. The two forms of consciousness, thoughts and feelings, possess different characteristics.

The particular kinds of thought processes you employ determine which kinds of overall consciousness are produced. The mixture should be the focus of your concern.

You are familiar with the fact that there are processes that can produce heat without light, and similarly, processes that produce light without heat. A similar principle governs the production of consciousness.

There are certain things you do with your mind that involve feelings but little or no thought, such as that warm glow when you see a loved one. The feelings that we experience in our consciousness are analogous to the heat form of fire. This is probably as close as we come to matching the conditioned cortical processing of the other animals referred to above.

Similarly, there are thoughts you have that involve little or no feelings. These thoughts exist as sequences of words that evoke an abstract sense of meaning and understanding within us. This is analogous to the light form of fire. To our knowledge, the other animal species do not experience this form of cortical activity. That is why it is not possible to actually have a real human (read philosophical) conversation with animals, even on the most rudimentary levels.

We seldom engage in a pure form of either process, it is almost always some mix of the two -- thoughts and feelings -- and that is precisely what we were created to do. The particular mix you create of these two forms of consciousness is what is important to your spiritual development. (The opposing of the negative with the positive consciousness energies is at the heart of the process we are to perform . . . which makes self-control paramount).

I believe the significance of Elliot's analogy of consciousness to light and heat as the way to understand our relationship to the universe, parallels the significance that the wave analogy of light and heat had as the way to understand energy in physics.

The Conservation Principle

One of the tests of abstract ideas in physics is whether they obey the conservation principle. Prior to the acceptance of wave theory, light and heat had been explained by unobservable physical phenomena. Heat was thought to be an invisible, weightless fluid termed caloric that was produced when a substance was burned and that could be transmitted from one body to another by conduction.

The caloric theory violated the conservation principle when applied to heat produced by friction during the application of mechanical energy. Mechanical energy was not conserved because it was continually used up and caloric was not conserved because it was continually being created. (Remember this idea of “continuous creation,” as it will appear in later discussions of theories about the universe.)

Today it is recognized that the process is not the disappearance of one thing and the appearance of another, but merely the transformation of energy from one form to another. The transfer of heat by radiation was determined to be an electromagnetic phenomenon. It was further determined that all electromagnetic radiation was at the same speed as light, the differences being in the wavelengths.

Light was thought to be a stream of corpuscles that traveled outward in straight lines from light sources. The corpuscular theory of light proved inadequate to explain the interference and diffraction of light in liquids, so electromagnetic wave theory became the primary explanation of light and optical phenomena. However, classical electromagnetic theory failed to account for photoelectric emission, the electric eye used in security systems and light switches. A compromise was reached by suggesting that light was dualistic in nature. Light propagation was explained by electromagnetic wave theory and the interaction of light with matter was explained as a particle phenomenon.

Since light appeared to be dualistic in nature, it was thought that the same might be true of matter. That is, electrons and protons, which were supposed to be particles, might in some circumstances behave like waves. This led to the development of wave mechanics, or quantum mechanics, which is considered to be a secure base for atomic theory.

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.

Energy - The Substance of Soul

Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy. It is merely stratified into differing states. The separation of these states is determined by the relation of their vibratory "speeds" to each other. (Remember this notion when we refer to String Theory later) Matter, or mass, is energy decelerated from the square of the speed of light.
Conversely, energy is matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light. This is Einstein's famous equation in words.

To understand the philosophical significance of energy, we must change our basic notion of speed as a characteristic of getting somewhere. Speed illustrates relativity and will be useful in simplifying the concept, as Henri Bergson observed, "percevoir signifie immobiliser."

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 traveling at an identical speed. The other car will now be a solid object to your eyes, not a blur of energy.

All matter is in continuous molecular motion. The speed of this molecular motion 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 molecular activity that comprises their very existence. We are not equipped to sense as a composite any substance that exists at the square of the speed of light. When the 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 molecular activity at similar speeds to ours are the living forms of substance, both animate and inanimate. Animate life forms are the ones whose molecular speed is identical to ours. Inanimate life forms are slower, but still living. The things whose molecular speeds are so slow relative to ours that they appear immobile are the lifeless (inorganic) forms.

The forms of substance with molecular speeds 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 molecular speed of our body and senses remains fixed, we can never see the fastest substance as anything but a blur of energy.

Solid Matter is Energy. This concept is vital. Therefore, I shall emphasize it and put it in the plainest possible terms. Solid matter and energy are NOT different phenomena. They are IDENTICAL, which is a primary source of confusion in our mathematical depictions. The only difference is their relative range of speed on either side of our molecular speed.

The harder a substance is to our senses, the slower is its molecular speed in relation to ours. The less solid a substance is to our senses, the faster its molecular speed is to ours. Energy is the term we use to describe substance in the speed range that we can no longer sense as a whole in this time-space. This does not mean it is any less "substance."

For the majority of us, whatever form of energy we consider, we always think of it as a power source that should be used to accomplish something. Eliot’s own implicit confusion about light and heat in his analogy to consciousness epitomizes the problem of subconsciously connecting energy with use. Eliot obviously believed that nothing of “substance” is created by fire.

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.

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 than the original substance, indicating faster molecular "speed." Therefore, it is 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.

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," we, like Eliot before us, do not consider it "substance" either. However, our consciousness is both substantive and substance, since it provides the field 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 preceding 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 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. An explanation of Motion in time-space might help to clarify some of this confusion.

Motion as Energy. 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.

We shall deal with Time-Space later in the discussion. At this point, perhaps an analogy will help to correct the basic misunderstanding of Motion .

A simple experiment with buttons may help. 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.

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 called Mass and the limitations of that measurement add to our confusion in understanding energy as substance.

Mass - A Matter of Significance

Mass is a concept that is the result of man's practical nature. Physics is concerned with physical phenomena for which it is necessary to have practical explanations. Every physical substance has mass, or its essential existence. Its mass is what is pushed, pulled, spun, or just allowed to lie there, in terms of the practical aspects of our reality. It is an excellent "measurable" abstraction for use in the mathematical models of our world.

We have used measurements of mass in our mathematical models to accomplish technological miracles, which is all we should expect from science according to the spiritual skeptics. They believe that what is done or how it is done are the only things man can know about the various phenomena around us. They feel that any other aspects of existence must remain indeterminate. This is why it has always bothered me when they “theorize” so freely about these “indeterminate aspects” and even present them as “scientific” explanations,(e.g. our Origins, no God) without according any similar courtesy or credence to “spiritual” explanations of these same “indeterminate aspects”!)

Indeterminate or not, we continually attempt to explain our world. Mass was a first approximation. The empirical nature of science requires that theories be supported by experimental observations. The methodology for measuring and assigning the characteristic of mass to "particles" requires a significant quantity of substance before it will register as possessing mass. This is an empirical limitation of the term and has no other justification.

Our early inability to refine the method for measuring mass required that we create a new term, quanta, to describe the smaller localizations of energy that we were encountering. Mass and quanta are interchangeable terms in their reference to the characteristic we are considering. They are both "cohesive localized energy events" (remember this phrasing) within the overall fabric of the universe. They merely describe different “amounts” of the same phenomenon and one of those amounts, a quantum, was not measurable as mass.

Quanta - The First Creation

Quanta are the first localized (massed) packets of energy with a given frequency. I should point out that light is quanta. In Genesis, light is the first creation. Even more interesting, light is represented as the first creation in the Indian, Greek, and Phoenician cosmogonies; and freely interpreted, is implied in the ancient Babylonian writings because they ascribe the creation of the world to the sun-god Marduk. Strange that all these sources should place light, alias quanta, first in the sequence of creation. Why wasn't it placed second or third or even simultaneously with darkness? What intuitive (right brain) insights underlie such consistency?

Quanta are the first localizations of the basic energy and their frequency is very high. Frequency is an expression of the internal "speed" of oscillation. As more quantities of energy localize the aggregate "speed" decreases. The frequency lowers because of wave interference.

Basically, the appearance of mass comes about by the merging of energy quanta into packets of energy events with slower aggregate frequencies that we can detect called "particles." These slower packets congregate into slower event systems we call atoms which congregate into even slower event systems we call molecules. The molecules congregate into even slower event systems we call substance. The more molecules in the system the slower the aggregate frequency and the harder the substance.

The Los Angeles freeways provide an crude analogue to this slowing because of frequency interference. A single auto approaching the outskirts of the traffic is free to maintain a respectable speed. As it progresses further into the city, it encounters more and more cars. Its speed diminishes until its forward progress is limited to the stop and go spurts by the massing of cars in the lane.

The average speed of each lane is determined by the average frequency of forward motion of all the cars in the lane combined, even though the individual rates vary. The individual frequencies that comprise each lane determine the frequency of the lane. The frequencies of all the lanes determine the frequency of the freeway. The frequencies of all the freeways determine the frequency of the Los Angeles system, and so on.

Perhaps a more precise analogy between energy systems and transportation systems is possible, but you should get the general idea.

Atoms - Reiterated Energy Events

Most of you are familiar with the generalization that atoms are the basic substance of all matter. Well, energy is the basic substance of all atoms. Quantum mechanics provides the frame of reference for the stratification of energy substance by acceleration. The "speed" is determined by the wavelength. The shorter the wavelength the higher the frequency and, thus, the faster it vibrates.

At the heart of the quantum theory of atom formation is the mathematically expressible phenomenon of the spherical standing wave. A standing wave pattern is permanent for any frequency, despite the transience of the propagated waves that comprise its becoming.

An atom is merely a gathering of smaller localized energy events in the form of waves that gather together and act like separate particles that have mass. Our scientists have named these localizations protons, electrons and neutrons. They are comprised of waves of energy at differing frequencies. Particle physicists are obsessed with finding ever-smaller localizations by “smashing” them in particle accelerators, hoping to find the smallest, most fundamental “particle” amidst the "splashes."

In much the same way, the surf of coastal areas is a localization of the ocean into swells that have "mass". Any surfer who has been wiped out by one of these localizations knows that they act like separate, quite solid, and massive particles of the basic ocean.

The individual wave disappears in the act of accomplishing its experiential effects but the surf remains. It is an interesting mental exercise to try to explain the true nature of the wave without referring to your experience with it. It would be cheating to identify it as the "one that wiped me out."

Perhaps after such a workout, understanding the nature of pulsational becoming and the standing wave patterns that underlie the permanence of existence will be easier. It might become more acceptable not to view "particles" as composite solids retaining their identity indefinitely nor simply as vibrations in a quasi-solid medium. The individuality of such elements is in the separateness of events, not things.

Existential permanence is in the reiteration of events through time, not the existence of particles through time. Unfortunately, the persistence of "particle" imagery has masked the essential significance of quantum mechanics to our understanding of reality.

The Non-Existence of Particles

The most revolutionary aspect of quantum mechanics has been variously ignored or vigorously denied depending on the author's particular preference ---- the fact that the existence of "particles" is no longer supportable. 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=hf and E=MC-squared mean that MC-squared =hf.

Unfortunately, our current mathematics fails to accurately represent the hypothesized wave interference derivations of "particle" creation because an expanding "beat" seems unavoidable in Schrodinger's wave function. This anomaly in the mathematical representation is used to justify retaining a "particle" orientation. However, the Rayleigh principle unambiguously states,

. . . an individual 'particle' is a whole train of waves of different frequencies which together form a wave packet. The velocity of these packets is a function of the waves comprising it.

We see that all energy is vibratory and Bachelard suggests the crucial connection with Time that our "measurements" mandate,

. . . From criticism delivered by wave mechanics, it follows that the particle has no more reality than the composition that manifests it. There are temporal events at the very foundation of its existence.

but it is Eddington who points out the fundamental conundrum of objective indeterminacy,

. . . to recognize h (Planck's constant) is to deny subjective indeterminacy and accept objective indeterminacy. . . The suggestion is that an association of exact position with exact momentum can never be discovered by us because there is no such thing in Nature.

A material particle thus loses its character of a substantial entity existing in space and enduring through time. It is revealed as simply that which we identify when we perform a particular process event in Time called "measurement," or observation.

[MysticPhD]

Time - The Ultimate Character of Passage

Time is the most confusing characteristic of our reality primarily because we think it is the easiest and most familiar to understand. We take time so much for granted in everything we do that we don't really think about it at all. But, it is an extremely abstract concept that is responsible for our confused perspective on reality.

We become aware of time because of change. We measure it in terms of changes in the inner workings of a clock, experience it through the aging of our bodies, and the relative positions we, and all matter, occupy in space throughout our conscious existence. But, like infinity, we really have no suitable frame of reference for time because we experience it only through these finite relativistic kinds of referents.

There is a significant body of literature devoted to attempts to explain time. The most reasonable and acceptable explanations for my purposes can be found in relativity theory, especially the contributions by Minkowski.

There are more exotic explanations to be found among the works of so-called "time-theorists," such as Ouspensky, Dunne or Priestley. But Relativity theory refutes their work, in whole or in part, on most aspects. In general, these "specialists" have taken an abstract creation that describes the core dimension of all "event entities" and tried to make it an entity with its own dimensions.

Ouspensky and Priestley ascribed three dimensions to time. Dunne was a little more conservative and only ascribed two dimensions to time. Essentially, the theories run aground when you try to "time" the motion of time along a time length to determine the "speed of time"!

Isn't it wonderful what can be achieved through specialization? I have nightmares about needing a surgeon to make a small incision in my throat to prevent my suffocating from an obstruction and he turns out to be a rectal specialist! (Some of my detractors will probably see nothing incompatible in such a combination.)

Relativity theory, remember, yields the conclusion that energy is merely matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light, essentially very "speedy" substance. If we suspend our incredulity for a bit, the universe could be viewed as a "flow" of energy at that speed. The perception of time, therefore, would be the result of seeing variations from the rate at which the universe "flows," essentially, "traffic jams" that constitute our visible universe. The universe probably does not flow in the normal sense (it is expanding), but the relationships are similar enough that it provides a convenient analogue for reorienting our perspective.

Waves: Wrinkles in the Fabric. A comparison between the flow of absolutely clear water through a completely smooth trough and the same flow through one with an impediment provides a helpful visualization. Since the speed of all particles of water is the same through a smooth trough, the flow is smooth and clear, i.e., no waves. Without a wave, there would be no perceptible change in the flow because all parts of the clear water would remain unchanged relative to all others. The beginning and end would be indistinguishable from any other segment and change would be undetectable. Time, as we discern it, would not exist.

The placement of a single impediment in the trough will cause some of the water to bunch together, and a wave is created. The level of water rises where the particles are slowed down from the normal flow by bunching, and the level lowers in the place normally occupied when the flow is uninterrupted. Now there is a segment in the flow - the wave - which is distinguishable from the rest of the flow, and any changes in it can be perceived.

These changes enable the perception of time. Without any other forces operating on the wave it would remain a wave forever. However, gravity acts upon the wave to accelerate it to the normal flow and it will eventually dissipate further down the trough. Therefore, by acceleration of the wave to the speed of normal flow, it ceases to be a wave. When the "water" is energy and the "flow" is our universe, the "waves" are matter.

As localizations of energy are accelerated they become less tightly grouped, representing less of a bump in the overall universe. The wave or "wrinkle" in the fabric of that segment of the universe approaches the smoothness that is the basic fabric. Removing a wrinkle from a sheet with an iron can be likened to accelerating the wrinkle to the basic "speed" of the fabric by adding heat energy. Thus, the wrinkle ceases to exist as a wrinkle. The mass of the wrinkle was once a detectable entity. Now, in one sense, it is less than it was, since it does not exist. But in another sense, its mass is now that of the entire sheet - an imperfect but simple analogy.

When matter is accelerated to the square of the speed of light, it ceases to be matter AS WE EXPERIENCE IT. It becomes pure energy, indistinguishable from any other energy, and therefore timeless.

Brain Waves: Ripples of Time. Our consciousness is a composite awareness superordinate to experiential constraints that accrues from the sequential acceleration of brain waves in the human cortex. This creates time and all of its enormous confusion for us.

I don’t know a simpler way to phrase it, except that the composite of brain waves comprising our thoughts attains wholeness or meaning ONLY in aggregate sequential parcels. For example, a word is a sequential parcel. We think with words sequenced into sentences or phrases in left-hemisphere processing. Right-hemisphere processing is more holistic, but any given "thought or feeling" is still some composite derived during a "sequence of quantum time." Since we cannot comprehend our existence except by our thoughts, and, since our thoughts only occur in sequentially accumulating "instantaneous lumps of awareness," we experience time.

Again, this use of common analogy is not intended to be precise and it certainly doesn't answer the difficulties suggested by Menger when he attempted to construct a topology without points (although his allusion to wave mechanics seems apt),

. . . For, by a lump, we mean something with a well defined boundary. But well-defined boundaries are themselves the results of limiting processes rather than objects of direct observation. Thus, instead of lumps, we might use at the start something still more vague -- something perhaps which has various degrees of density or at least admits a gradual transition to its complement. Such a theory might be of use for wave mechanics.

Each brain wave is its own ripple in the holomovement that is our reality. The individual brain waves exist at the speed of light(created “molecules” of awareness). The composite "instantaneous lumps of awareness" (substantive consciousness) exist at the square of the speed of the brain waves (molecules) that comprise them, in this case, the square of the speed of light or infinite becoming.

As noted earlier, it is our ability to create these sequential links with infinite becoming (to think) that enables us to apprehend changes or abstract a sequencing of becomings subordinate to or superior to our current level of becoming. In this manner, we can recognize our own incompleteness (and the very notion of incompleteness itself!).

Unfortunately, the sequential nature of the creation of these "lumps of awareness" continuously creates new reference points for the perception and experiencing of our reality. Consequently, from our vantage point, which is the succession of our thoughts, we perceive life moving through time.

Our perception of time is ultimately contingent upon the sequencing of stimulus situations subsequent to the passage of thought. "Before" is a stimulus grouping that was comprehended by an earlier "lump of awareness' or previous thought, and "after" is a grouping concomitant with subsequent thought. William James referred to it as the "stream of consciousness" (sort of like a "flow" through a trough?).

Remember it is change that enables the perception of time. It is the "accelerated" frame of reference constituting our awareness that makes possible, as well as creates, all the confusion. Essentially, our bodies retain a sub-light existence while our consciousness attains a light-squared level of becoming. As I said before, Plato described it as our Soul is

"dragged by the body into the region of the changeable, and wanders, and is confused."

To understand the confusing nature of our perceptions as created by our thoughts, we have to try to reorient our thinking from its usual patterns and reverse the relationships. Normally we think of frequency as the rate at which a wave changes position over time. The appropriate way to view it is not how fast the wave changes position, but how slow the energy wave event is relative to the "flow" of the universe. All the energy, of which the packet is only a part, can be viewed as changing its "position" by the square of the speed of light.

For the packet and all sub-light-square energy events, time is elapsing. The time we experience exists only for energy events at less than the square of the speed of light (C-squared). Consequently, we experience time because our bodies exist as matter at less than normal flow, as waves in the overall universe, but our Souls (Consciousnesses) exist as pure energy at C-squared, which is timeless.

Our consciousness exists at C-squared. Unfortunately, the process of using our consciousness, the mental fumbling we perform to reach conclusions, can be considerably less speedy. This might make it difficult for you to believe that your thoughts exist at C-squared. Therefore, you need to separate the "fumbling" from the energy transformation that enables us to fumble, imagine or solve problems. It is our consciousness, itself, not how we use it, that exists at C-squared. Existence at C-squared is existence as energy and is eternal or timeless.

Time Viewing. While you are considering the preceding and trying to solidify your understanding of the analogies I have presented, keep in mind that we can create waves in a still lake while there is really no "flow" of the lake to disrupt. The water in the lake establishes the field (hint, hint) determining the spatial and temporal properties of the metric space occupied by it.

You can see that we are in a unique and rather confusing predicament. Just as our ability to tune in a T.V. set enables us to see and hear the passage of electromagnetic emissions, so too, our ability to tune in to infinite becoming (to think) enables us to see and hear the passage of time.

The all too common psychological differences in the perception of time can be seen as stemming from internal differences in the aggregate frequency of the brain waves constituting a given awareness event ("lump"), e.g. watching the hands of a clock versus having so much fun that "time flies." When we go to sleep, we turn off the T.V. in more ways than one. By severing the stimuli from the base of reference we eliminate the perception of time. We turn off the Time Viewing.

Whitehead addressed himself to this sequential process and concluded,

. . . So far as sense-awareness is concerned there is a passage of mind which is distinguishable from the passage of nature though closely allied with it. We may speculate, if we like, that this alliance of mind with the passage of nature arises from their both sharing some ultimate character of passage which dominates all being.

The "ultimate character of passage which dominates all being" is the light-squared (C-squared) level of becoming. Existence at C-squared is what the creative advance of the universe and the passage of thought share in common.

This is certainly a telling abstraction to grasp. Our situation is rather like having a TV camera on the moon to watch ourselves trying to reach the moon to bring the very TV camera we are using!

Our TV camera is our consciousness and it produces our very distorted understanding. The clearest examples of this distortion can be seen in the rather illogical notion of discordant time series or the even more bizarre notion of objective indeterminacy.

Discordant Time Series. The real villains in our misdirections are our measurements of reality, in particular the inexplicable constant speed of light. Einstein used the inability of classical physics to disprove the constant speed of light as an indication that it was one of the ultimate and unalterable features of physical reality, which it is. This led inexorably to a complete restructuring of the foundations of physics - the two theories of relativity. The most spectacular implication of these theories lies in the purported impact of light speed on the passage of time.

In the Special Theory, the "dilatation" of time is seen as a reciprocal phenomenon of perspective. In the General Theory, it is believed that gravitational and accelerational considerations effect an actual dilatation of time within the traveling system.

The famous time-retardation space flight, voyage au boulet, focused attention on this particular characteristic of time-space. Many of you have read about the effects of a space-flight at or near the speed of light on the passage of time. Actually, Paul Langevin's Gedanken experiment is better left at that . . . a thought experiment.

It would make as much practical sense to speculate about the fate of a chicken egg yolk if you could stretch the egg to one thousand times its length, release it, and have it return to its original size unbroken. Surely in such a case the yolk would tend to be "dilatated." Do you know of any such chicken egg?

It might be enlightening in that regard to compute the engine output requirements necessary to generate a state of acceleration of any molecular mass up to a "substantial fraction of the speed of light." It would then be revealing to exhaust the spectrum of molecular substance searching for one that would retain its cohesion in proximity to such an engine or that could withstand the force necessary to decelerate from that speed.

Molecular structures, per se, probably could not exist in proximity to any such engine nor retain cohesion at the speed of light or any substantial fraction thereof. The parallel is unmistakable to the probability of encountering a chicken egg whose shell has the elasticity required for the stretching experiment.

Despite exhaustive ruminations about dilated time units and topological moments, wherein the “cosmic duration” is the same but the time is different, the bulk of such assertions are misguided by our failure to consider the role played by our thoughts in our measurements.

The confusion of metrical invariance with the topological invariance of Minkowski's "world interval" produces the relativity notion that the length of a time interval (even between two causally related events) can depend on the choice of the system of reference, even though it cannot become zero in any system and a fortiori cannot become negative (the event cannot precede its cause).

Naturally, our notions and measures of time at our sub-light level of becoming would not hold at the C-squared level of becoming. It is a quantum change, not a gradual one. We cannot achieve it and remain in our current molecular form (other than through our thoughts!). This is at least as certain as the fact that chicken eggs cannot be stretched to one thousand times their size or any substantial fraction thereof either.

You can save yourself a lot of computational headaches by reading the work of Dr. Edward Purcell, Noble Laureate in Physics, titled, "Interstellar Communication."

Whitehead attempted to explain discordant time series,

. . . The difficulty as to discordant time-systems is partly solved by distinguishing between what I call the creative advance of nature, which is not properly serial at all, and any one time series. We habitually muddle together this creative advance, which we experience as the perpetual transition of nature into novelty, with the single time series which we naturally employ for measurement. The various time series each measure some aspect of the creative advance, and the whole bundle of them express all the properties of this advance which are measurable. [Emphasis added]

Measurability -An Artifice of Thought

Far from only partly solving the problem, Whitehead's distinction is a more than adequate solution. In distinguishing between the "measurable" advances and the "creative advance," Whitehead overlooked the significance of the very nature of the phenomenon of measurability.
Paradoxically, it is this same phenomenon, “MEASURABILITY” (observation -- as it is referred to in quantum discussions), that produces all the interpretational difficulties in the indeterminacy debate.

Measures (observations) are an artificial aid to logical thought. That which is measurable is that for which there is a viable construct in the relativistic and sequential framework of thought itself. Every measure has meaning only when we can relate its representation of stimulus configurations to some standard configuration in our mind (as Dedekind so cleverly pointed out).

We ingenious creatures have created objective measurement devices to monitor the changes we perceive more accurately. But these objective creations have always been ultimately dependent upon our subjective assessments of existing relationships (e.g., time involved for a mainspring to unwind, and so on.) These assessments require some base of reference connected to the normal flow.

We simply fail to acknowledge that our consciousness possesses any tangible connection to the basic structure of the universe we seek to understand. But it is only because our consciousness is at the normal flow of the universe (is pure energy) that our "measurements" and notions of time have any validity. In Helmholtz's words,

. . . Events, like our perceptions of them, take place in time, so that the time relations of the latter can furnish a true copy of those of the former.

Paraphrasing Milic Capek, according to Helmholtz, time is the only feature which is shared by both physical reality and our consciousness. (This is extremely important to understand and remember) In all other things, perception is only symbolical and the dissimilarity of the stimulus and its conscious registration is striking.

For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of air waves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. Capek states the question clearly as he references Menger's "topology of lumps" notion,

. . . But if the time of our consciousness and the time of physics are both pulsational in their nature, can we obtain a better insight into "the topology without points" in exploring the structure of psychological time? Is it possible to find an adequate scheme sufficiently general and sufficiently flexible to be applicable to physics and psychology?

R.L. Wing suggests,

. . . Since the advent of quantum mechanics, . . . scientists have become intrigued with the link between human awareness and the workings of the universe. Quantum mechanics seems to suggest that the sub-atomic world --- and even the world beyond the atom --- has no independent structure at all until defined by the human intellect. . . . They suggest that we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.

What Wing should have said is that “ . . . we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws as measured and apprehended by us are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.” Our thoughts provide us with the ability to measure and apprehend the relative incompleteness of our becoming in sequential fashion only because of our access to a frame of reference in infinite becoming that shares a temporal equivalence with the physical world.

Our unique perspective is responsible for such concepts as "measurement," "sequence" and "procession." Since our link with infinite becoming is created by the sequential accumulation of brain waves, we can only measure (observe) and model sequentially.

Unfortunately, as Dedekind pointed out, we too easily relegate Time to the penumbra of our deliberations as something "given in the inner consciousness," and we miss the vital reason it is impossible to "measure" simultaneously position and velocity, or energy and time. Heisenberg has demonstrated that such attempts are doomed to failure, and Zawirski has observed,

. . .If the instantaneous cut of the temporal flow according to Heisenberg's formula leaves energy completely undetermined, does not this prove that the universe needs a certain time to take on precise forms?

This confusion about what actually takes "time to take on precise forms" in the observation process (our consciousness), has provoked controversy because the artificiality of our mathematical models of our "measurements" leads us into absurd explanations of this "indeterminacy." We tend to completely overlook the nature and limits of the very phenomenon (our thoughts) by which we create models and mathematics.

Many mathematicians, physicists, and whatnot, tend to forget the artificiality of their models and ignore the need for introspection into the assumptions that underlie their use. It is very easy for a true grasp of the mathematical side of a theory to exist side by side in the same mind with serious misunderstandings or ignorance of the philosophical implications of the theory.

Our mental habits are strong and mathematics was created specifically to conform to those habits. Einstein opposed Weyl's attempt to justify the phenomena of quanta indeterminacy primarily because Einstein wanted to retain a strict adherence to a unitary field (free of discontinuities and singularities, something modern physicists seem less willing to do!). Admittedly, Einstein wanted that strict adherence because he recognized the limitations of continuous mathematics (only such changes can be modeled by partial differential equations). Clearly, Einstein was not unaware of the limitations and philosophical implications of our mathematical models!

Unfortunately, those physicists closest to understanding this vibrational nature of our reality, the String Theorists, are forced by their own entrapment in our confused perceptions and measurements to be equally absurd in their purely mathematical attempts to find a unified theory. In order to retain their "particle" (or at least some kind of “substance”) notions they created the idea of “strings” (something tangible to hold on to) instead of pure “vibratory events.” They posit extra dimensions, for reasons not dissimilar to those of the so-called “Time Theorists” discussed earlier, to try to make the artificial mathematical models correspond to our “measurements.” (I believe M theory currently requires about eleven dimensions!)

We reduce much of the current controversy, particularly if we are courageous enough to examine the sterile equations of physics with a decidedly theological, as well as, philosophical perspective. As St. Augustine said,

"Non in tempore sed *** tempore finxit Deus Mundum,"
(God made the world not in time but with time.)

The mathematical relationships and manipulations we use to model or represent the measurements and creations comprising the symbolic machinery of our thoughts have certain inherent limitations as Godel pointed out. When these are exceeded or ignored at the higher levels of abstraction, distortion is frequently the result. These distortions are what produce expressions of infinity, indeterminance, or logical paradoxes.

Trace the following algebraic procedure carefully and you should detect the simple misdirection that appears to lead to the absurd answer.

Given the Identity: a=b
The steps are :
1. multiply both sides by a; a2= ab
2. subtract b2 from both sides; a2 – b2 = ab – b2
3. factor both sides; (a – b)(a + b) = b(a – b)
4. simplify by dividing both sides by (a-b); (a + b) = b
5. and then substitute for a. 2b = b


Even though the algebraic manipulations follow our mathematical rules precisely, it is easy to see the basic error because the equations and the identity are so simple in form. In fact, if we "measured" the variable a and used its actual number instead of its variable notation, the mistake would never be made because we wouldn't try to factor out the zeros that the identity creates. For one thing, the effects of an identity cannot be avoided once "measurement" occurs.

When we try to combine different mathematically "measurable" ways of expressing an identity (eg. MC-squared = hf), we find that we can only get one result or the other (indeterminism) when we measure them, not both simultaneously. Because position is not something different from momentum, except for the "time component," our inability to measure both does NOT mean that an objective reality is therefore non-existent and is only a subjective, observer-dependent ("measured") reality!

The mathematics seldom give us a problem when we have only the equations and relationships among already "measured" entities (calculations on existing data). When we have only abstract functions, it is not that simple. The preceding kinds of errors are not so easy to detect when we are manipulating complex quantum wave functions ("quiffs"), performing matrix mechanistic resolutions, or manipulating multidimensional (parallel) mathematical universes.

Wave functions have two parts, a real part and an imaginary part, because of the conventions we use to represent things in our artificial mathematical language. Imaginary numbers, i (or the square root of -1) are consistent with our mathematical view of reality, but not with the true structure of reality. The concept of negativity is a useful fabrication in our models, but troublesome as a description of our existence, since there is no rewind button for life.

For example, an astronomer can determine the past "positions" of the moon simply by substituting a negative sign for time in his equations. This belies the fact that negativity is an imaginary replacement of reality. It is like tracing the progress of an infant from birth back to egg and sperm. The description is possible, but the process is imaginary. We stop real time, replace it with our imagination, and trace the development in reverse. Fortunately for us, reality is unidirectional. It is always becoming, never unbecoming!

The resolution of a wave function that occurs upon measurement, (collapsing the wave function from a wave of all possibilities to a single fact) requires multiplication by its complex conjugate (essentially this removes the unrealistic imaginary part, i).

In and of itself, multiplying two separate entities together to obtain a single result is not unusual. But because our abstract understanding of the actual phenomena being modeled (and any "identities" therein) is flawed and incomplete, the philosophical implications of the results can be misleading. The potential is great for similar kinds of identity problems to that shown earlier, despite flawless rule following in the abstract mathematical manipulations used in the derivations or solutions.

Our mathematical removal of the "reversed time component" (the imaginary i) when resolving wave functions should have automatically been suspect. We need constantly to remind ourselves of the artificiality of mathematics as emphasized by Dedekind,

. . . numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things. It is only through the purely logical process of building up the science of numbers and by thus acquiring the continuous number domain that we are prepared accurately to investigate our notions of space and time by bringing them into relation with this number domain created in our mind.

In short, mathematics is a domain that exists in our mind alone. Its rules are merely parts of a language arbitrarily created for its usefulness as a tool for communicating about certain aspects of our world. Its symbols are used to represent "measured" structural elements of reality. In fact, it is probably impossible to deal with the underlying concept of "how-muchness" without a mathematical language.

However, because we can “discretize” certain aspects of reality that are probably not discrete, we can quickly lose the correspondence between our symbolic representations and reality itself. Mathematics is only effective for describing our "measured" ( and ONLY the measured!) quantitative aspects of our world.

Our mathematics are ultimately constrained to the “measured” aspects of reality which are heavily dependent upon OUR consciousness, reflecting OUR sequential links with infinite becoming “measured” as Time. It is only because we have access to the infinite level of becoming (consciousness) that we are able to detect or abstract a sequencing of becomings, wherein "measurement," C-squared, time, and flow become useful conceptual models.

Fred Wolf tried to explain a provocative finding in biology that he believes supports an otherwise absurd idea in the transactional interpretation of quantum physics. The transactional interpretation suggests that a quantum wave of probability moves backward through time from the future to the present. The theory maintains that a physical system can only appear to an observer if the quantum wave representing it propagates BOTH from the present to the future and from the future to the present! In short, in order to explain a number of paradoxical results, a quantum wave would have to be allowed to have this absurd "science-fictional" privilege.

Actually, Fred may be closer to understanding this than he, himself, realizes. As he points out, biological evidence exists that we can be aware of things even before any actual signals have reached our brain. Fred describes his interpretation of this biological evidence from neurophysiologists thus,

. . .Put briefly, how can a subject be aware of a sensation, that is, be conscious of it, if the subject's brain has not registered the "awareness"? The answer may turn out to be a surprising new discovery. The future actually communicates with the present in the human nervous system.

Actually, prior to this neurological evidence, the fact that we must have this superordinate link to infinite becoming (future) in our consciousness was already revealed to us in our mathematical symbology. Without it, some of our meaningful formulations would be meaningless.

For example, Minkowski's formulation of the constancy of the world interval (a reassuring construct) illustrates the dependent nature of time, as we use it, on the square of the speed of light:

I = Squareroot{S-squared – C-squared(T2 - T1) }

where S = spatial distance; T2 - T1 = time interval; and C = speed of light. In words, the spatial separation of events is altered by a continuum of C-squared for any "measured" temporal separation.

To grasp the philosophical significance of this formula, it is necessary to reorient your thinking from our "inside-out" perspective to an "outside-in" perspective. The expression actually reflects relativistic events arbitrarily "measured" within the illusion that comprises our internal view of reality. If a difference between two internally measured events (T2 - T1) in a system has an effect on a third event (S-squared) by a specified constant (C-squared), that implies that the measurements were made using that constant as the ultimate base of reference! That is why it is constant!
We assess stimuli that exist at less than C-squared against a base of reference at C-squared, which is our thoughts. In fact, without such a reference at C-squared, "measurement" itself would be impossible, which means that differentiation between T2 and T1 would be impossible and any multiplicative relationship with C-squared would be meaningless.

The tendency to eliminate Time from our consideration of time-space, consciously or unconsciously, led Minkowski to use the expression "four-dimensional world" (vierdimensionale Welt) instead of "four-dimensional becoming." But, our existence is a complex system of "becomings" within "becomings" with each "sphere" of becoming pervading all those subordinate to it, yet distinct from them. Each "sphere" of becoming "flows" at its own "tempo" with the innermost spheres possessing the slowest "tempo."

The separate spheres can be likened to separate musical compositions. The separateness of experiential phenomena accrues from the harmonic or discordant nature of the relationships between pulsational elements within each level of becoming. The entire composite of infinite becoming "flows" at C-squared.

The use of quotes around "flow," "tempo," and "sphere" signifies their inappropriateness as descriptors. It will make little sense to talk about non-Euclidean "spheres" because in the non-Euclidean framework of existence the use of Euclidean constructs is problematic. Yet, imagery in the main, excluding auditory images such as melody (which most closely approximate our reality) is invariably Euclidean.

The basic Euclidean and Newtonian nature of our thoughts is formed by our encounter with the reality of our daily lives that is steeped in the middle ground of cosmological reality (between the Macro and Micro worlds). Consequently, we are handicapped by our own automatically Euclidean imagery.

Nonetheless, it is not really necessary to visualize anything to understand the significance of all these verbal aerobics. It is only necessary to recognize that our unique form of consciousness has characteristics that provide a scientifically supportable explanation for the features of time-space as we perceive and experience it.

We know that the human cortex, in the generation of brain waves to produce thought, generates its own field. Consciousness cannot exist without such a field. The speed of light is the velocity of propagation of our brain waves as we create consciousness. Consequently, our consciousness exists at God's "molecular speed" or as energy. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity suggests that time-space only exists as the structural quality of a field. The RELATIVE ABSENCE indicating a VACUUM in space is indistinguishable from an INFINITE PRESENCE . . . since BOTH conditions would give the same result to any instrument of detection we could create? In discussing dematerialization, Einstein described how such an effect could be achieved without there being any real emptiness,

. . . a superposition of two oppositely oriented local curvatures of the non-Euclidean time-space which would cancel each other like two waves of equal amplitude meeting at opposite phases and the result would be a local disappearance of the non-Euclidean curvature. That particular region of time-space would acquire the homogeneous and undifferentiated character which characterizes what we call 'void' or 'absence of matter.'

That sounds a lot like the merging of two "opposing" energy events, perhaps like the negative drive energy generated by our animal nature meeting an "opposing" positive drive energy in our consciousness generated by our soul. Think about it!

It doesn't seem like such an unscientific stretch to believe that the source of the universal field defining the structural and metrical qualities of our reality is a Cosmic Consciousness, infinite orders of magnitude greater than ours, usually called God.

In conclusion, there is more than adequate scientific support for the idea that something akin to a Cosmic Consciousness (Universal Field) MUST exist as the foundation of all our reality. I am comfortable with the idea that the aggregate consciousness of God is the Universal Field ordering our reality.

[Georgiafrog]

YouTube - The Moody Blues - The Best Way To Travel

So would you contend that the only seperation between the "natural" and the "supernatural" is the varying speeds of molecular energy? If so, how does the C2 energy of conciousness coexist with the limited perception of time existence? How would the C2 conciousness transfer it's energy at death into the infinite removal from the ripple effect time barriers in the flow of time? Is this just a not yet understood transfer of energy? I have always conteded that the supernatural, or the realm of God, exists outside of the natural universe, not just imperceptably inside on a different molecular energy level. Maybe I am reading you wrong here.

I am not a student of Quantum Physics. This my first real reading of any of it, but I believe I get the nature of what you're saying. I enjoyed the posts, and would love to get a schooling here. Are you positing that the soul is a superior energy manifest constructed by God to allow abstract thought within a structured environment?