Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last night was the first I read of the synthesis. The following address's items found in the third segment. These comments are stated as opinion and have nothing to do with personalities, including my own. I am simply sharing .
Mystic...( third synthesis
Spiritual Implications
The implications of this "frequency range" understanding of the composition of reality as it manifests to our sensory systems can be difficult to digest. However, the appeal and ubiquity of music can be the cognitive lever that enables the appreciation of its implications for our relationship to God. God's "aggregate frequency" (Divine "key") is Love . . so everything in our consciousness that intends to be with God's consciousness must be played in that "key" in some "harmonic" that resonates. From Milic Capek:
. . . In the temporal structure of the perception of melody, features can be discovered which appear irrational in any visual-mechanical model of physical reality: the primacy of events, the absence of infinite divisibility, the compatibility of novelty and mnemic causation, the compatibility of continuity and individuality, the fusion of becoming with its concrete content.
. . . The positive significance of the auditory experience is in the fact that from it a certain imageless dynamic pattern may be abstracted which will probably offer a key to the understanding of the nature of the type of 'extensive becoming' that seems to constitute the nature of physical reality.
The entire purpose of our species is to produce "cellular forms" of consciousness that perfectly resonate with God's Cosmic Consciousness. None of our early primitive ancestors were remotely capable of achieving this . . . but by evolution of self-control through obedience training . . . we evolved the capability (the "meek inherit . . ."). The "spiritual template" revealed in our "spiritual fossil record" suggests that it takes at least ONE of us to achieve "perfect resonance" with God's consciousness to connect the cumulative output of humanity (our collective consciousness) to God's consciousness. Jesus Christ did that for us . . . and the rest is easy . . . just "love God and each other."
Procreative Thought: Our Eternal Soul Song
Our soul is a spiritual embryo in the womb of our brain. Energy transmutation is the mechanism underlying its maturation process and energy is the very substance of our soul. Our consciousness is our soul in the process of becoming. Our thoughts are the production process for the development to maturity (Death) and rebirth of our soul into its rightful plane of existence. But, pure thought, uncolored with human emotions, is not the type of consciousness we are supposed to produce.
For those of us who prefer right-brain imagery and analogy, musical composition provides the best analogue for our existence. Our mind is merely the conscious manifestation of the interaction between our soul and our animal nature. The relative strengths of these two "ingredients" yields the nature of our consciousness. You can view our consciousness as a mixture of thoughts and feelings (awareness and reaction) . . . just as a piano concerto is a mixture of melody and rhythm. The music is the product of the left and right hands, but it is neither all melody nor all rhythm . . . and it does not exist except as the product of the rhythm and melody hands.
Similarly, our consciousness is the "music" played by our soul and our animal nature (adversary) through the stereophonic system of our brain. This is the very essence of cosmic becoming, as Capek suggests,
Let us consider a piece of music . . . It is hardly necessary to underscore its successive character. As long as its movement is going on, it remains incomplete and in its successive unfolding we grasp in the most vivid and concrete way the incompleteness of every becoming. At each particular moment a new tone is added to the previous ones.
. . . The quality of a new tone, in spite of its irreducible individuality, is tinged by the whole antecedent musical context which, in turn, is retroactively changed by the emergence of a new musical quality.
. . . Every musical structure is by its own nature unfolding and incomplete; so is cosmic becoming, the time-space of modern physics.
This idea of the constantly changing character of a musical piece is amazingly evocative of the nature of our spiritual character. The retroactivity of the effects of each new note on the character of the entire preceding musical composition highlights the importance and impact of "repentance" on our Soul Symphony.
Soul Music
The phenomenon of music and its diversity of character and appeal is readily understood once the basic composition of the human psyche is fully understood. The amount and kind of rhythm and melody that is present determines the character of music. Music appeals to both facets of the human psychic makeup. This becomes clearer when you consider that rhythm and melody occur at separate ends of the sound spectrum. The rhythm or beat appeals to our animal nature. Our animal nature is the serpent (reptilian brain) or physical partner . . . therefore it is in the low frequency range of solid matter. The purest form of rhythm, the low frequency sound of savage drum beats, represents a predominance of animal appeal.
peter-1
( this is a good place to start and provides a basis for complaint against idea's brought forward, in the initial introductory dialog.
The beat as we know is a function which determines the pace in timing of a piece of music. It allows the music to understand its "place in time". In order to effect the lower base is utilized as a rudder on a small craft as it not only determines the pace it also influences tonal direction by specific tone in notes played in the base. This is very important as base is in fact not the representation of our animal, but the "guide" for the music, a story itself.
The base establish's a dominance in this role and the higher frequenceys in music played obey in unity with the governing characteristic's outlined in
determined direction by the lower base frequencey's. The participation of the lower base like thunder suggest "authoritative wish, which cannot be denied and is therefore more I would say representing a higher power idea, rather then whats being suggested. However, this again is not a favorable idea. I will show why very clearly a more suitable explanation in a moment.
Also, when we see young teenagers driving about with a loud thumping base in the car, or pop music with an extremely pronounced base, the attraction to this style of music is in keeping with above, when we consider the possible "need in youth" for the attraction to a strong governing influence, remarking to both society by musician and self by listener that indeed there rests a powerful influence of direction. In short a gap is filled in an unconscious known insecurity. This is well explained I feel. ( for time allotted today
Mystic......
Our soul is in the high frequency range of pure energy. Since our soul represents an accelerated state of energy or wave frequency compared to our animal nature, it follows that higher frequency sounds would be more compatible with our soul than with our animal nature. Furthermore, consciousness can more readily detect and appreciate the altered sequencing of harmonious sounds which is melody and can understand lyrics. The soft, euphonic, high frequency strains of a Stradivarius violin in the hands of a master, would represent a predominance of soul appeal.
peter-1
The extremeties in high-low frequenceys, express the boundaries neccesary allowing the system of music to exist. There are indeed character personalities in notes themselves, however the suggestion of appeal by individual frequency is very vague. As mentioned earlier, the lower base, or one individual lower base note played only sets a
dominant direction by tonal selection. Thats all.
The character within individual note can be heard only by someone with perfect pitch. I have better then perfect pitch. Even if a note is out of tune by 1/4- 2/3- up to even 1/2 a semi tone, which in fact is another note, I can still tell you just by hearing on pianoforte , the note struck was G, but its out of tune and trying to be a Gsharp. Why?..
because I can hear the character in the note itself, it has nothing to do with frequency. Each note has an individual unique character personality. One for example...F on pianoforte is the extreme in decisiveness. Bold, my name is Jack and thats all there is to that. E..is the other extreme, open to suggestion, non evasive, softer-agreeable...my name is Rose and I just am, what will be today in which I may too play ?
In evidence and in keeping with above, I offer Chopin's etudes in example. I have studied and played many in public. I enjoy teaching presently. None of the etudes would have the teriffic effect that each of them do, if transposed into another key signature. The choice in key signature by the composer is all about the story to be told. Again, the base has nothing to do with any character or designated qualitative appeal in merit as suggested. If anything it is in the use of the characteristics in each note tone as explained, which can create tension, incompleteness in music allowing for a release, in there abilities within key signature-character.
This association of tension-release and key signature are vital tools allowing the story of "translation of individual experience" to be told. Music is inviting because if we associate "another" experiencing and translating what we ourselves experience in the journey...we know we are not alone, one of mans largest fears. The story translation acts as example in management of the journey itself, which again is inviting as "hope in resolve by example of what would be fortitude is communicated in the story.
Mystic
The mixture of soul and animal that comprises our consciousness at any one time determines our preference in music at that time. The admixture determines the "resultant frequency" of our consciousness and subsequently determines its compatibility with various mixtures of melody and rhythm in music. That is why for most of us our taste in music is a fluid thing, highly dependent upon our mood or the circumstances we are in. This is further support for the notion that our consciousness is like the "music" played by our soul and animal nature. When the serpent is in charge, we prefer more rhythmic music. When our soul is in charge, we want more refined music. Most of us seek a compromise that equates to our "mood."
peter-1
It must be fully understood when speaking about music and the human, that music itself is a suggestion. An experience suggested within the experience of life. All three componants of our human property are in motion. The actual self or soul, the known self and the societal self whether playing for others, or self. The appeal to different kinds of music is founded on a number of different things in keeping with the mentioned participating properties of the human. Firstly and fundementally would be freedom.
The freedom to select from known experience what would nicely fill and express the particular residing emotion. This can only be established from memory in the experience of music to make a selection of determined choice. Also, in this regard, we now bring forward the repretoire of known music. An individual who's social enviorement is suggesting rap, will choose rap not all together out of soul state or choice, but to feel connected to the important social network which most shows, the greatest amount of time forward in experience. A person cannot enjoy music that was never enjoyed, its like an olive, aquired taste, followed by known experience full-filled.
Mystic
The idea of soul in charge and musical appeal
Arthur Schopenhauer captured this significant aspect of music in the following excerpts from The World as Will and Idea,
. . .in its language, which is understood with absolute directness, but which is yet untranslatable into that of the reason, the inner nature of all life and existence expresses itself.
peter-1
I differ here. The characteristic's in notes themselves and key signature, audible by myself within the composition, using tension and character provide absolute rational meaning. For the tension aspect imagine, any little tune like Mary had a little lamb, now stop anywhere...what follows in order to be in keeping with order-reason, must present itself. The unconscious knows what must follow in tension as well characteristic. I consciously hear
characteristic in keeping with order.
Mystic
. . . As quick transition from wish to satisfaction . . . is happiness and well-being, so quick melodies without great deviations are cheerful; slow melodies, striking painful discords, and only winding back through many bars to the key note are, as analogous to the delayed and hardly won satisfaction, sad.
. . . The short intelligible subjects of quick dance music seem to speak only of easily attained common pleasure. On the other hand, the 'Allegro maestoso,' in elaborate movements, long passages, and wide deviations, signifies a greater, nobler effort towards a more distant end, and its final attainment.
peter-1
Tempo is the use of time, tempo also makes a suggestion to our heart rate, suggesting moods and so forth. Time in music is important to understand. Markings in the score will make strong suggestions up to and including the very important use of "non-time" a rest marking.
The use of a rest and graduating toward in timing is very important. Some composers can use non-time very very effectively. In this non-time, we find a suggestion of the unknown mysterys of our origin. I will provide a piece, listen carefully and enjoy the use of graduating non-time, and non time, our mystery, not frequency. It is non frequency within frequency which holds the key. In evidence, the still before the storm, non time,reality, full reality...a suspence. Why...because we are afraid that we do not know, that reason is within non-time, but playing along in remarkable symphony with time. Our inner actual self knows however, otherwise the significance and sheer power of non time, graduating non time in music and other things holds the full reality. So...seems to me the base is closer but not the full rudder-governing, as it proceeds only, toward non wave frequency.
Mystic
. . . All that goes on in the heart of man and that reason includes in the wide, negative concept of feeling may be expressed by the infinite number of possible melodies, but always in the universal, . . . always according to the thing-in-itself, not the phenomenon, the inmost soul, as it were, of the phenomenon, without the body.
. . . According to all this, we may regard the phenomenal world, or nature, and music as two different expressions of the same thing, which is therefore itself the only medium of their analogy, so that a knowledge of it is demanded in order to understand that analogy.
While Shopenhauer's sensitivity enabled this discernment, he was unable to employ his own mandate that "a knowledge of it is demanded in order to understand that analogy." His highly philosophical approach was the only way he could support what he knew to be true, since contemporary physics was unknown to him. Today it is obvious how music and nature are "two different expressions of the same thing," once a knowledge of quantum mechanics and wave theory is employed. After all, music is merely waves of sound at varying frequencies, and matter is merely waves of energy at varying frequencies.
peter-1
Music only express's experience in nature, it is a manipulation of sound per experience using tension, time and tone characteristic. A communication. If well prepared it is not apart from nature, it represents a translation of experience within nature, and thus agree's with the properties of consequence to order in nature..it joins nature. They are not different expressions of the same thing. They are partners. A birds mating call itself by the nature of the partnership in music with nature....holds the key in luring the future hopeful spouse. Not different things expressing the same thing.
Mystic
The almost universal preference for lyric and melody indicates the general superiority of the soul, while the extreme diversity of the melodic character and its admixture with rhythm indicates the tenuous nature of that superiority. Gospel music can have tremendous soul-stirring power when it successfully merges strong rhythmic appeal with melodic and lyrical expressions of the strongest yearnings of our soul. It is another indication that controlling our animal nature and merging its emotions and promptings with our soul can yield the best accomplishments of humankind. The "meeting of two opposing energy events at opposite phasing " described by Einstein as producing the void or absence of space seems instructive.
In discussing dematerialization, Einstein described how such an effect could be achieved without there being any real emptiness,
peter-1
Its time...your after timelessness and getting all mixed up with the wave-frequency boundary. Music will not support and takes everything away from the idea, in frequency being sugessted in this manor
Mystic...
. . . 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 negative drive energy generated by our animal nature meeting an "opposing" positive drive energy in our consciousness generated by our soul. Think about it!
peter-1
(the squeech in nature on attack in suggested disorder to threat opposed to a lion low murmur in peaceful consequence to order?)
the whole use of boundary is being warped into meaning within themselves which is illogical to balance itself, and if undestood, what Ive carefully explained. The whole construction of this idea is problematic for myself in this regard only however, as I am not a scientist but a musician.
This was written quickly and in atonement find the enjoyment and use of timelessness by non-sound, or time decreasing effect toward nonsound, non time.. in this composition. A masterpiece for it. The base is not, the demise. It is the rudder. Thank-you for your patience and time. The timelessness in self re societal vrs actual self...the patience..non time and resulting consequence due to quality of patience. Our patience, our non-time connection with realism in the ultimate non time divine or what ever infinity all the idea's.
I am pleased that you found something in the synthesis that you could relate to so well. I fear that you misunderstand the purpose of my pointing it out. There is as much complexity in music as their is in life itself . . . so my equation of the frequency ranges within which that complexity is manifested was in no way intended to account for ALL the complexity, appeal, lack of appeal, etc. of music.. I was painting with a broad brush . . . as did Schopenhauer . . . to equate the structure and composition of our reality to the structure and composition of music . . . at its most fundamental characteristic . . . waves.
I understand your explanation of the many aspects of a musical composition that also affect its appeal . . . but I was just drawing very general comparisons to the low frequencies of matter at which our physical body resonates versus that of our thoughts as pure high frequency energy. I appreciate your contribution to the analogy. It fleshes out the analogy to strengthen and explain the similarity to the individual complexity found in each human life . . but you are criticizing it for what it is NOT intended to communicate.
I think the point being made is that, contrary to what intuition might tell us, the "forces" of the universe, and the "stuff" of the universe are different in degree, but not in kind. The are simply different manifestations of the field.
Which is pretty interesting if true.
that's basically what I was referring to.
I said I'm accepting the premise.
well, I guess my next statement wasn't direct. my bad.
regardless, there is no possible basis to objectively infer that they are the same substance. because then it goes into, " are they different in degree because one comes from the other? are they different in degree because they are actually sub-properties, which would violate conservation? or is the similarity meaningless and the observation incidental?"
the 1st is untrue because it doesn't account for the lack of function in the proposed first property. the 2nd is untrue because conservation is true. and the 3rd is not un-true.
well, I guess my next statement wasn't direct. my bad.
regardless, there is no possible basis to objectively infer that they are the same substance. because then it goes into, " are they different in degree because one comes from the other? are they different in degree because they are actually sub-properties, which would violate conservation? or is the similarity meaningless and the observation incidental?"
the 1st is untrue because it doesn't account for the lack of function in the proposed first property. the 2nd is untrue because conservation is true. and the 3rd is not un-true.
seemingly, the 3rd is the case, though.
All three of your supposed alternatives are so far off they are not even wrong. Our measurements and our measurements ALONE (observations for the quantum theorists) determine how the field manifests to us. There is never any violation of conservation. There is nothing incidental or meaningless about that.
All three of your supposed alternatives are so far off they are not even wrong. Our measurements and our measurements ALONE (observations for the quantum theorists) determine how the field manifests to us. There is never any violation of conservation. There is nothing incidental or meaningless about that.
I am not saying that.
I am talking about its ability to be wielded as a bridge to some greater inference.
The violation of conservation would be present in the 2nd one, since if M/E are experimentally assumed to be sub-properties, then there either has to be pre-bang existence of physical properties, or the inferable universe began once this property began to do its "work".
The first is not possible since the cause of the bang--density--would have to not be present, meaning less quantity of energy in the field(violating conservation). The 2nd isn't possible because the conservational sub-properties are products.
So, really, if you think about what conservation REALLY means, it means that the universe starts from the "work" of M/E.
The 3rd:
The importance of the mere relation to each other in one form of qualification has not been established. It's like saying, in regards to purple's relation to red, "purple is [red+blue]"....hey, look, you're right... >_>
I am talking about its ability to be wielded as a bridge to some greater inference.
The violation of conservation would be present in the 2nd one, since if M/E are experimentally assumed to be sub-properties, then there either has to be pre-bang existence of physical properties, or the inferable universe began once this property began to do its "work".
NO. The field is the only reality and IT does all the work. When we "observe" it (measure) it takes the many forms of M/E which are always conserved.
Quote:
The first is not possible since the cause of the bang--density--would have to not be present, meaning less quantity of energy in the field(violating conservation). The 2nd isn't possible because the conservational sub-properties are products.
So, really, if you think about what conservation REALLY means, it means that the universe starts from the "work" of M/E.
Density is an inferred property biased by our measurement dependent perceptions. Try this thought experiment using our measures. The equation from Einstein and Lorentz for determining Mass yields a mathematical expression of infinity when the velocity equals the speed of light. In other words, when velocity reaches the speed of light . . . Mass becomes infinite. Velocity is only the measured speed of propagation of a detectable pulsation in a medium. For any medium, the velocity of propagation is the square root of the pressure-volume-density relationship (the bulk modulus divided by the density).
The field is the medium. Density would be its measured infinite Mass and its infinite bulk modulus would be MC^2. This tracks with reality because we could not have a velocity faster than the speed of light because velocity is the square root of the infinite bulk modulus (MC2) divided by the infinite density(M). What is a singularity if not our measures driven to infinity?
Quote:
The 3rd:
The importance of the mere relation to each other in one form of qualification has not been established. It's like saying, in regards to purple's relation to red, "purple is [red+blue]"....hey, look, you're right... >_>
NO. The field is the only reality and IT does all the work. When we "observe" it (measure) it takes the many forms of M/E which are always conserved.
what are you defining as the field? a field doesn't take forms of M/E, unless you're referring to the sensable form/ extension of it, and not the intention/ "substance" of it.
also, what is your use of "conserved" here? it seems out of place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Density is an inferred property biased by our measurement dependent perceptions. Try this thought experiment using our measures. The equation from Einstein and Lorentz for determining Mass yields a mathematical expression of infinity when the velocity equals the speed of light. In other words, when velocity reaches the speed of light . . . Mass becomes infinite. Velocity is only the measured speed of propagation of a detectable pulsation in a medium. For any medium, the velocity of propagation is the square root of the pressure-volume-density relationship (the bulk modulus divided by the density).
The field is the medium. Density would be its measured infinite Mass and its infinite bulk modulus would be MC^2. This tracks with reality because we could not have a velocity faster than the speed of light because velocity is the square root of the infinite bulk modulus (MC2) divided by the infinite density(M). What is a singularity if not our measures driven to infinity?
This does not conflict with anything I said. I only said that hypothetical time before the big bang would require less density. I don't reject the equation and conclusion given above. This can be understood abstractly since mass and manifestation of light are the properties of the same particle unit. The only way to get infinity in a sum is for you to suppose infinity as one of the values, which is obviously assumed when you don't know the quantity and are testing for it.
but, really, consider what you're saying when you say "frequency of vibration." what is vibration? radiation in a field. Mass is only accelerating due to energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Nonsense.
How is it not analogous? or are you just being vain and attitude-oriented? it's a superficial relation, based on what has been given. how do you not see that?
I am pleased that you found something in the synthesis that you could relate to so well. I fear that you misunderstand the purpose of my pointing it out. There is as much complexity in music as their is in life itself . . . so my equation of the frequency ranges within which that complexity is manifested was in no way intended to account for ALL the complexity, appeal, lack of appeal, etc. of music.. I was painting with a broad brush . . . as did Schopenhauer . . . to equate the structure and composition of our reality to the structure and composition of music . . . at its most fundamental characteristic . . . waves.
I understand your explanation of the many aspects of a musical composition that also affect its appeal . . . but I was just drawing very general comparisons to the low frequencies of matter at which our physical body resonates versus that of our thoughts as pure high frequency energy. I appreciate your contribution to the analogy. It fleshes out the analogy to strengthen and explain the similarity to the individual complexity found in each human life . . but you are criticizing it for what it is NOT intended to communicate.
Good thats great. Music is a bit of a break in itself, so maybe this is half decent timing.
These are simply idea's.
I'm seeing some of the Schopenhauer idea, and will add that the analogy in this scheme would seem fully subject to a single sentence spoken. A musical interlude would be a dressed up sentence.
A pause in the fluctuation, or even lack of the sentence would represent non wave, a sentence not spoken, another real non-time, non-wave event allowing for the sentence itself. I don't see how that can be left out in philosophical fairness. IOW where is it represented in a proposed structure of reality I wonder ?
An overall "reality in the structure of the universe idea, without the necessary absence and lean toward the absence in time seems lacking as long as the analogies are used. Timelessness in the structure of reality, or lack of wave motion would be necessary in using these analogies, as it is evident allowing for their existence. The analogies are showing more . All communication use's timelessness, The structure-product would seem to require this feature, and it would seem to be a mutually co-dependent partnership.
Copy from wikp for clarity...
The relative pitches of individual notes in a scale may be determined by one of a number of tuning systems. In the west, the twelve-note chromatic scale is the most common method of organization, with equal temperament now the most widely used method of tuning that scale. In it, the pitch ratio between any two successive notes of the scale is exactly the twelfth root of two (or about 1.05946). In well-tempered systems (as used in the time of Johann Sebastian Bach, for example), different methods of musical tuning were used. Almost all of these systems have one interval in common, the octave, where the pitch of one note is double the frequency of another. For example, if the A above middle C is 440 Hz, the A an octave above that will be 880 Hz (info).
continuing...
in above system, we have a 12 method organization. All 12 are organized in octaves by setting a corresponding pitch at double Hz. This allows a duplicate note as shown in the A above, although available at many different frequencies, or highs and lows. The only difference, is in the setting which suggests a greater or lesser vibration, they are the same note, but under different suggested time influence's by frequency. So the point is , high-low frequency is a representation of influence by time only, as they are identical in character. This may be interesting or not, there seems to be much going on with waves and distinctions out of high and low. They would seem time oriented only, by frequency, suggesting a set intended available movement or you might say metabolism, but the same 12 animals, no difference. Same guys regardless. I think the organization and setting shows.
Plus, grateful for not seeing an issue on the base-rudder analogy, its a little more entwined , and deals with the heavy waters, its not at all a negative, just part of the whole.
I am talking about its ability to be wielded as a bridge to some greater inference.
The violation of conservation would be present in the 2nd one, since if M/E are experimentally assumed to be sub-properties, then there either has to be pre-bang existence of physical properties, or the inferable universe began once this property began to do its "work".
The first is not possible since the cause of the bang--density--would have to not be present, meaning less quantity of energy in the field(violating conservation). The 2nd isn't possible because the conservational sub-properties are products.
So, really, if you think about what conservation REALLY means, it means that the universe starts from the "work" of M/E.
The 3rd:
The importance of the mere relation to each other in one form of qualification has not been established. It's like saying, in regards to purple's relation to red, "purple is [red+blue]"....hey, look, you're right... >_>
I'm not sure that I follow you.
This is from the Standford Encyclopedia article i cited earlier:
Quote:
According to Einstein and Infeld, in pre-relativistic physics one can distinguish matter from fields by their properties. Specifically, matter has energy and mass, whereas fields only have energy. Since mass and energy are distinct in pre-relativistic physics, there are physical criteria that allow us to distinguish matter from fields qualitatively. So it is reasonable to adopt an ontology that contains both matter and fields. However, in relativistic physics, the qualitative distinction between matter and fields is lost because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Consequently, Einstein and Infeld argue, the distinction between matter and fields is no longer a qualitative one in relativistic physics. Instead, it is merely a quantitative difference, since "matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small"(1938, p. 242). Thus, Einstein and Infeld conclude, mass-energy equivalence entails that we should adopt an ontology consisting only of fields.
Strictly speaking, Einstein and Infeld's conclusion concerning the ontology of modern physics does not follow from E = mc2 alone. As we have noted toward the end of Section 1, mass-energy equivalence by itself does not entail that a chunk of what we ordinarily regard as material can be completely converted into energy. Thus, even if E = mc2 is true, it is still logically possible that a theory whose basic ontology consists of both matter and fields might be required. What speaks against this option is a generalized hypothesis concerning the nature of matter based on the empirical observation that some sub-atomic particles can radiate all of their mass. Finally, the development of quantum field theories subsequent to Einstein and Infeld's interpretation lend further support to their view, since these empirically successful theories treat the basic constituents of matter (such as electrons) as quantizations of a field.
Among philosophers, Russell interprets mass-energy equivalence in a way that prima facie seems similar to Einstein and Infeld. According to Russell, "a unit of matter tends more and more to be something like an electromagnetic field filling all space, though having its intensity in a small region" (1915, p. 121). In his later work, Russell continues to hold this view. For example, in Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits, he points out that "atoms" are merely small regions in which there is a great deal of energy. Furthermore, these regions are precisely the regions where one would have said, in pre- relativistic physics, that there was matter. For Russell, these considerations suggest that "mass is only a form of energy, and there is no reason why matter should not be dissolved into other forms of energy. It is energy, not matter, that is fundamental in physics" (1948, p. 291). Russell is proposing that mass is reducible to energy in the sense that the world consists only of energy. Thus, for Russell, "mass" and "matter" are otiose in modern physics.
I edited my post a little. I guess it's noticed Ive got my mind on the approaching toward-achieved rest and time. The idea in non-time in the music is also mirrored in sustained notes. The whole non-time representation on both sides of the fence toward balance is remarkable. The communication is almost together at once, remarking as well, with another "posed" in human music, non-wave dimension. If its too complicated to explain, not a problem. I'm simply in wonder by its participation and suspect, some kind of dimension is posed in interaction, which is wave-less. This has nothing to do with looking for a mysterious something, because it simply exists within these analogies, and is a necessary tool for over all volume in the expression. And as well I suppose used naturally in nature. Ive used some of these idea's with wild robins and have had tremendous results. Once contact in communication is established, ( it can be explained how, you have to let them finish what they want to tell you, if you know what your doing, you can ask, where are you in the right tone, at the right time..and they will change branch's about 8-10 feet to show, it takes a little know how and time. They also will be very insistent on who decides when the convo is over, there is a distinct sound that they will make , when they agree ok, our talk is finished. You can do the same with them, but they will not like it. So you wait to listen to the rest of the story. One day I was playing, finished and laid down on the chesterfield. A robin in the tree started making all these weird noise's. What the heck I thought, about 8ft from the window, I listened...she was trying to hit the melody with her weird chirps and was having a little trouble...but hitting the tune. Next few days, same time same place there's that robin, ok so she wants music. Oh 10 minutes...never spoil anything. On the 4-5 day I guess it was raining badly....there she was in the leafless tree on the same branch waiting for her music. I went out and told her to get out of the rain...I practically had to chase the poor little thing out of the tree. Anyway the birds know me here and there are many stories, including purposely getting in the way while mowing the lawn....there like little kids. They all ask questions re territory by motion. Not so much birds. Ive done tests as well. Anyway Ive been working on insects and thats another huge story. Sound is a huge thing with insects. Either they have ears or psi..because most know what HEY means and I had some remarkable success with lady bugs and others. I trained them to not cross a light cord. They not only obeyed after about oh 4-7 days but for 5 days, which is a long time for them...one of them sat on top of the cord...doing my job for me, none of them crossed after that. Unbelievable this communication in the creation. Ok ...I think thats it for me and will return to the silent sam reader.
It's a long old thread and still interesting. I do take Mystic's idea that there is 'something' that is pretty much 'nothing' but is in fact everything or is the basic stuff of everything.
What actually is it? Mystic's Dark Matter is an obvious candidate and since a universe that 'evolves' consciousness has to have the elements of consciousness, the universe has to be conscious. Therefore it is obviously God. Fit into that theory the many human myths (or the bits that fit anyway)as spiritual fossil evidence.
Unless Mystic wants to say that this isn't what his theory says, in essence, that might help to clarify the idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
>_>