Possibilities - an attempt to understand our Reality little better

[Human]

During the discussions at Cassiopaea Forum Reading Workshops, in particular those about Wave 8, Ch 68 "As Above, So Below", a lot of interesting ideas and viewpoints have been brought fore (to our awarenesses), which when coupled with reading From Paul to Mark - Paleochristianity gave birth to a novel perspective on 'Inner and Outer Spaces', similar to title of this Forum category/subforum. So, here's this perspective for everyone's scrutiny and reality crosscheck.

Although in general I don't mind hammering, except maybe those parts of my fingers which end up bruised in the process, "thinking with a hammer" didn't sit so well with my mind. It might have something to do with pulling out numerous nails as a kid though, out of many planking grown-ups at the time used in construction works about/around family house. Anyway, instead with a hammer, a manner that has sit neatly with my mind was "thinking with a shuttle", like weaving thought threads together, warps and wefts, through and/or around, into something like a tapestry (of knowledge).

When thinking last night about how to start this Forum thread, No. 11 from Fellowship's 'short form' Statement of Principles came to mind.

The primitive concepts woven together into the core of the Fellowship’s world view are summarized in the Abstract below and developed in the following text. They can be expressed in short form in the words of Kurt Gödel, who wrote:

1. The world is rational.
2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
10. Materialism is false.
11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
12. Concepts have an objective existence.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad but religion is not.

An example of analogy that appeared following No. 11 direction of thought was about water and air.

Water has mass density of cca 1000 kg/m³, while density of air is cca 1 kg/m³.
In first approximation, taking into account just how densely water and air are spatially packed, it could appear that phenomena happening in water (like in waters on Earth's surface) happen also in air, just on 1000 times larger scale (like in air above Earth's surface; atmosphere).
For those similar kinds of phenomena, like ocean currents and atmospheric rivers, although they appear in different media (water/air) and on different scales (1/1000), we could say they are connected by analogy.

Another pair that seems connected to me is mass and electrical charge.
According to Newton's (mass) and Coulomb's (electrical charge) laws, the influence mass and electrical charge exert around themselves is similar, just happening on different scales. In other words, mass creates a field around itself which appears similar to field created around electrical charge, the difference being only in strengths/intensities of those fields.

There's also this interesting (to me) thing about light spectrum and its wavelength range which modern science detects. Although we've gone to the scale of electrons (possibly also neutrinos), all the way to 10^-18 m on one side of the spectrum, on the other side we don't detect signals larger than those in our atmosphere, up to max 100,000 km (frequency 3 Hz). That implies to me that 'light signals' of, for example our own Earth-Moon system (384,400 km), whole Earth with its atmosphere on both sides or that wave that circled Earth n times (n x 40,000 km) after Tonga volcano eruption, and larger ones, are completely undetected by our modern day scientific instruments.

Since those scales are exactly the astronomical ones where mass (gravity) starts to express its influence in a serious manner, it appears to me that EM waves (light) of such wavelengths might in fact be like gravity waves created by astronomical bodies (of same size as light wavelengths). In other words, gravity and electrodynamics might be connected by analogy or, in plain terms, they might be same phenomenon, just happening on different scales.

Ok, not to put the cart before the horse or jump right 'in medias res', some groundwork would probably be externally considerate, like laying out the framework through which this novel perspective is going to be presented. Also, before using Hamilton or nabla (change) operator on different types of objects (left around in my Forum posts) and starting to weave this quasi-electrodynamics that might encompass also gravity, in next post here I want to share a text written recently in effort to express some of my views about and understandings of quantum physics.

Cordially,
Human

P. S. Под ракитою

 

[Human]

Many have probably heard about Schroedinger’s cat and funny things scientists observe in the world of smallest of the smallest, where quantum physics appears to be the governing force of action. Hence, here’s a story or two which might help get everyone concerned in right mood for stories that follow.

There is this owner of a laptop. Once, he sits down in front of it to check online news while having a cup of tea. Being immersed in what he reads and listens, he falls in a sort of quasi-conscious state of awareness. Next, apparently loosing recollection of where his cup containing the tea actually is, he moves his left arm rotating it to where he imagined the cup was. Unfortunately or/and fortunately for him, the cup has been much closer than he thought and all the tea inside it ends up all over the laptop.

In an actual attempt to control perceived damage and to skew potential appearance of any worse future situation, owner of a laptop unplugs the power cord from laptop still working. Taking some paper towels from counter nearby and wiping away all the tea he could perceive, owner stops for a moment to think before further actions.

There is probably some tea inside, wonders owner of a laptop and concludes, expert drying appears as a reasonable next step.

At a service workshop, after drying and inspecting the laptop, owner of the workshop informs owner of a laptop that all is well with it. I dried the insides and laptop is working naturally for its age and usage so far, removes the worry from the air owner of the workshop. Only thing that could be kinda nuisance, adds he, is that laptop is not working with its power cord unplugged from it.

With both eyebrows raised, owner of a laptop asks owner of the workshop for further more informative explanation. Well, there are two options, either battery is not working or one microchip inside the laptop is not working, expertly expresses his knowledge about the situation owner of the workshop.

There is this microchip inside that redirects the flow of electrical current from/to one coming from the power cord to/from one in/of the battery, learns owner of a laptop, and maybe it is not working, points to his concern owner of the workshop. To know for sure which one is broken, the microchip or the battery, I need new battery of the same type laptop has to exclude the battery inside as potential source of the problem, wrapps up the apparent solution to the situation owner of the workshop.

Buying new battery just to exclude a possibility that this battery is not working, does not appear like a very reasonable resolution to this situation, thinks owner of a laptop curving his lips. Perhaps further observation at home might make me a bit more knowledgeable about all this, wonders he and decides to take the laptop home for further inspection.

Being back home, owner of a laptop plugs the power cord into it and presses the On button. Laptop turns On naturally as usual. He unplugs the power cord from the laptop and almost immediately it turns Off, giving almost no new info about the “microchip or battery” situation. Both possibilities still appear possible, both microchip and battery might not be working, perceives owner and proceeds with collecting info bits and also applying knowledge he has learned about the situation so far.

He presses the On button again and laptop turns On, indicating that battery is working. That quickly settled this dilemma in favor of the microchip, thinks owner of a laptop raising his right eyebrow. Out of curiosity, he also plugs the power cord back into the laptop while it's still On. Laptop remains On, to his surprise, indicating that microchip is also working since/because it just now apparently redirected the flow of electrical current of the battery to one coming from the power cord.

It also apparently redirected the flow even before, recollects owner of a laptop that laptop turned Off after first unplugging back at home. Afterwards, laptop turned On only on power in the battery, he proceeds with the memory and concludes, while before the unplugging laptop was working on power coming from the cord. He now unplugs the power cord again and laptop also turns Off again. Knowing that his laptop has bugs of its own, owner waits a bit before pressing the On button.

With surprised facial expression, owner of a laptop observes it staying Off after pressing the On button. Now, he presses the On button several times, with different intervals in between each, but to no avail, laptop remains Off. He plugs the power cord back into it and presses the On button, and to his relief laptop turns On. Now, being pretty sure in the outcome of next unplugging, owner, with the power cord in his hands, looks in wild disbelief at laptop being On after the actual unplugging.

Owner of a laptop stops for a moment to assess the situation.
Battery is working at its natural capacity, there is no doubt about that/this. It also appears microchip is working, at least occasionally, redirecting the flow of electrical current naturally as usual.

Owner of a laptop decides to do as follows.
To get information about microchip working possibilities, he is going to do trials, unplugging and plugging the power cord from/to the laptop or/and pressing the On button, while observing and noting outcomes of those trials. Kinda small experiment to gain info bits about statistical probabilities of potential outcomes of next trial, results of which are hopefully going to speak amount about microchip’s working capabilities, swaying his head owner almost hears potential info bits in his mind.

This might be nice and neat application of that old Latin saying, “Repetitio Est Mater Studiorum”, sums his thoughts about current situation owner of a laptop adding, also a decent and quality opportunity to get valid quantitative impressions about microchip’s worthiness in terms of countable probabilities.

Experiment results.
Laptop rarely remained On when power cord was unplugged from it and also rarely turned On when pressing the On button afterwards. In both of those rarely outcomes when laptop was On and unplugged, it would also always remain On when power cord was plugged back into it.

Displaying situation about the microchip in quantitative expressions, it was working in about 10% of unpluggings and in also cca 10% pressings of the On button when power cord was unplugged from the laptop. This in fact means that when the On button is pressed, microchip when working also redirects the flow of electrical current to one in the battery, similar to what it does during the unplugging part of the trial process. As a final result, owner of a laptop notes that in all trials he did, when laptop was On before plugging the power cord back into it, it also remained On after the actual plugging.

Discussion.
Question, which appeared like a dilemma to owner of a laptop, “which one is broken (not working), microchip or battery?”, gave almost no info about the situation since/because its answer is, “None, neither microchip nor battery is not working”.

Thinking about the situation, owner perceives that question, “which one is working, battery or/and microchip?”, is in fact much more informative in its answer, “Both, but microchip only cca 10%”. Thinking about this in more detail and depth, owner of a laptop realizes that this question is like a mirror reflection of that question, “which one is not working?”.

Since/because that question had an appearance of potential dilemma to owner of a laptop and he perceives this question as a mirror reflection of that question, he decides to name this question “actual trilemma”. It fits neatly, thinks owner and proceeds to explain.

Dilemma means choosing between two options, like choosing between Yes/No or 0/1. This trilemma question on the other hand, like it name says, gives three possible options for its answers, one or other or both, hence signs “or/and” or/and “and/or”. It also has a forth option in potential, neither, the answer of dilemma, hence prefix pre-word “actual”.

Obvious trivial answer to this trilemma, thinks owner of a laptop, is both, because in fact both, the battery and the microchip are working after all. More complex answer, “although battery is working naturally as usual, microchip on the other hand is working in only cca 10% of situations”, stops by the domain of above mentioned quantum physics, nods owner and draws a conclusion and also an abstract.

Conclusion And Also Abstract.
While battery is working at its natural capacity at the time, microchip is actually working only about 10% when redirecting the flow of electrical current from the power cord to one in the battery and all 100% when redirecting the flow of the current of the battery back to one coming from the power cord.
Or/And ↔ |&&|
Microchip is potentially not working 90% when redirecting the flow of electrical current from the power cord to one in the battery.

Appendix.
In a sense, this microchip is like Schroedinger’s cat, recollects owner of a laptop, it is both working and not working at the same time, just like the cat that was both dead and alive simultaneously. Only way to know for sure if it is going to work next time or/and if Schroedinger’s cat was alive inside the box with a needle, is to actually unplug the power cord from the laptop or/and also was to open the box, and observe the situation upon those actions.

Addendum.
Laptop, when unplugged, does not turn On any more by pressing the On button, shrugs his shoulders owner of a laptop and states, probability for microchip working is cca 0. It appears the microchip is good as dead now, argues he until like a ray of light a thought flashes in his mind. Well, even if probability is negligible, I can always foundedly hope for microchip to work once more again, since/because I observed it working once before, contritely concludes owner of a laptop the situation now.


Classical example of quantum physics situation is famous two slit experiment, remembers owner of a laptop. When electrons, particles making electrical current, come to a barrier with two slits on it, they appear to go through both of slits simultaneously on their way to curtain behind the barrier, he recollects his grad study.

Looking at the interference pattern electrons leave on the curtain behind the barrier, it appears they are waves and not particles at all, recollects owner of a laptop that interference is a wave phenomenon. On the other hand, when one of the slits is blocked, pattern on the curtain behind the barrier shows only other slit’s shape and form, implying that electrons are particles, owner contrasts his previous thought.

Similarly happens with light, current of particles called photons, continues owner of a laptop and adds, like electrons, photons also appear as both, waves and particles. When light traverses through a rupture on a sheet, owner constructs the situation in his mind, the shape of the hole appears on the curtain behind. Similar happens when another rupture and also another one, all distanced from each other and from the first hole, are punctured on the sheet, envisages owner and concludes with a smile.

Unusual, quasi-quantum situation appears when some of the ruptures, i.e. their shapes on the curtain behind, come closer together. Now, light coming from each of them intertwines with light coming from all others, making the interference pattern on the curtain behind the veritable signature of the whole group as one joint entity. As in that saying that sum of parts is greater/larger than their simple addition, togetherness of the group gives them 'composite group individuality' which is larger/greater than sum of each and every individual taken separately.
​

Cordially,
Human

P. S. Mercy Now && Wish You Were Here

 

[Human]

So, the groundwork.

Well, here's another 'analogy'.
Envisage a spread sheet, stretched on its ends, and a marble somewhere on it. The weight of the marble makes a dent on the sheet, with the depth/size proportional to it, more mass - deeper/larger the dent. Now, add energy to the marble, charge it with it, and the dent around our charged marble becomes larger and deeper then before, appearing like our marble, by being charged, gained some nice weight. That's basically what happens with a massive 'positively' charged (although the exact sign is a matter of convention) particle (e.g. proton); other marbles around our charged one sense it 'through' the 'shape' of the dent it creates around itself.

Situation is slightly different for a massive 'negative' charge (or any other with a '180°' opposite orientation compared to the 'positive' charge above). It might help to envisage the sheet with a dent, from previous paragraph, just looking at it from below, i.e. upside down. The dent becomes a peak and size of this peak represents the charged energy (of opposite direction/orientation then our original marble) of the 'negatively' charged marble. Similar image would also represent the situation of 'negative' mass; instead of attraction (other marbles around 'roll' towards the marble in the middle which created the dent) there is repulsion, a dent becomes a hill where marbles around roll away from the hill top where marble which created the hill resides.

Since mass appears to always create a dent (attraction of gravity), situation with 'negatively' charged marble is not exact mirror reflection of 'positively' charged one, i.e. top of the peak/hill is not perfectly matched in topology with the bottom of the dent. Instead of being a 'spike', like the very bottom of the mirrored dent, the hilltop appears 'curved' to the other side, with a 'smallish' dent (gravity is much weaker than EM) like a crater on the very top of the hill.

Obviously, situation with our uncharged marble at the start of this post was 'simpler' than with all that energy charging, turning nice spherical dents into round hills with craters on their tops or simply into 'volcanoes' if you will. On top of it all, this energy not only charges the static marble at rest, but when marble is in motion (translation and/or rotation) it also appears to magnetize it. So, to keep things simple at this stage, let's just observe the situation without that energy charging. Also, again for the sake of simplicity, let's bring everything down to only one dimension. The question now becomes, which one out of our 'ordinary' 3 spatial dimensions, height - width - length/depth, shall we choose for further observation?

Well, this 'depth' at the end of the list above, has called me to consider '4th spatial' dimension (in/out) as potentially first one to start our discussion with. Interestingly, this dimension also indirectly, tangentially touches the issue that gravity and/or electric force/field have when distances go to 0. Newton's and Coulomb's laws, which are experimentally verified at least up to some scales, state that when dimension of a marble, i.e. its size becomes that of a point (no size to measure), the field at that point goes to infinity (like in division with 0, which mathematically is not a defined operation), i.e. in our 'analogy', point-like marble ruptures the sheet. Similar should happen when two and/or more marbles come together and touch each other on the sheet.

To start as simpler as possible, let's also look first just on 'out' part of our 'in/out' dimension. Please note that this is not exactly like looking at a line which can mathematically be described by function f(r) = 1/r for any r (size and/or distance). Maybe it might help to put ourselves in the shoes of our marble at this point in our discussion.

First, being there the only one and all alone, our marble does not sense anything or/and anyone else outside of itself. So, maybe first thing to do might be to touch itself all over its body, to get a sense of its own size. Of course, since there's nobody there to compare itself with, even after touching itself, our marble does not know any relationship yet (like more-less relation). Since we're operating in only one dimension (in/out) so far, the marble's body, i.e. its size, would be a measure, like a unit size, which would then also represent the boundary between 'in' and 'out' dual parts of the dimension.

Next, our marble not knowing how to create light (one that we're familiar with) without that energy charge, might proceed to choose the direction of observing/sensing the world outside of itself. Up til now, our marble has only a sense of its own size (but nothing to compare it with). The choice of direction of observation is in a sense like actualizing this direction out of all other potential directions which could have been chosen. This direction can then be called 'actual', while all other directions remain in 'potential', like being dormant and waiting to become actualized by being chosen for observation.

Prior to actually choosing the direction, our marble might (and probably would) turn around itself to check and be sure if somebody else wasn't there. If there would be any sign from anybody around, the marble would probably choose to check it, actualizing the direction toward that sign. In any case, even if a direction was chosen, actual destination and what awaits our marble there would still remain in the unknown, i.e. in the potential, although seeing and interpreting signs (along the path/journey) correctly/objectively might give our marble some awareness of what could be awaiting it at the destination.

By choosing the direction, our marble except of its size becomes also aware of front/back dimension of the space around itself, i.e. of the 'out' part of the 'in/out' (first) dimension. While still not choosing the direction of motion (forward/backward) with respect to its chosen direction of observing/sensing, our marble can start to rotate around that direction, clockwise and/or counterclockwise. This spinning, although it does not effectively move our marble, gives it a sense/knowledge of existence of other perpendicular, orthogonal directions with respect to the chosen direction. In other words, through the plane of rotation which axis lies on the chosen direction, our marble becomes aware of other dimensions of our 3D sace, i.e. directions forming base vectors of an outside space.

In short, by choosing the direction along which to observe/sense and spinning around it, our marble becomes aware of all 'other' 3D space around itself laying in potential (for checking what's there and who else's there). Please note again that we chose to discuss only 'out' part of 'in/out' dimension, implying that what's been described might hold water just for 'r>1' region of our 3D space so far. Mathematically more correct description, if we denote the size of our marble with lambda (λ, as for wavelength), would be that we discussed 3D space with points (x,y,z) laying outside the 'sphere' with radius λ/2, i.e. part of the (x,y,z) space that satisfies x² + y² + z² > (λ/2)².

In other words, 3D space becomes actual only after the direction of 'in/out' dimension has been chosen.
In that 'first' spatial dimension, duality appears as a choice in relation to self - In the Self or/and Out of the Self in concern to 'location' and From Self or/and To Self in respect to 'motion' - and later on this self in 3D space appears as a density of mass, i.e. mass contained in 3D spatial volume, with or without energy charge.

Using notation 'r > λ' for above discussed outer space, where λ now stands for the size of the Self, we can also denote with 'r ≤ λ' the 'inner space' of the 'in/out' dimension. In a sense, this size maybe might be called 'wavelength of FRV', i.e. of frequency resonance vibrations mentioned in C's sessions. On one side of the 'range' we might have neutrinos, minimally massive particles where λ -> 0 (inner space is almost nonexistent, i.e. size of the self is sheer minimum needed for actualization) and everything/everybody is 'outside', while on the other side where λ -> ∞ there is the Divine with everything and everyone - All - 'inside' Itself and nonexistent outsides.

Cordially,
Human

P.S. Hallelujah && On the Turning Away

 

[Human]

Well, as a physicist, probably easiest way to explain myself is through physics and mathematics, so let’s take a look at our marble from outside world in terms of electrostatics.

From Coulomb’s law E = charge · r/r3, where r is direction and distance from/to given charge, and principle of linear superposition (total net electric field is sum of all individual fields from individual charges inside some spatial volume), we have that charge density ρ=charge/volume is in fact source (divergence) of electric field E described above: div E = ∇·E = 4π·ρ, where ∇ is nabla or del operator, representing spatial ‘change’ or in terms of simple mathematics like a ‘division by distance’, 1/r.

Since Newton’s law has the same form as Coulomb’s law, we can say the same for mass density, it’s the source of its gravitational field of the similar form. In case of static charge (or/and mass), its field can further be represented as a gradient of the scalar field called potential V: 4π·ρ = div E = div (- grad V) = - ∇·∇ V = -∇^2 V.
Put in simpler words, nabla/del operator’s application to scalar fields such as potential V (gradient of V) is in fact giving the direction and rate of its fastest increase.

Now, taking the above as a starting analogy for our marble in ‘in/out’ dimension (and omitting 4π factor for the time being), it appears to outside world as a density in a sense of being the source of its field, ‘source’ of direction and rate of fastest decrease (minus sign) of a potential scalar field. Potential field of what exactly? Well, in one mathematical abstract dimension where our marble resides at the moment, we have only its size λ and direction with amount of distance d from it (in units of its size λ) to work with.

Since distance from our marble in abstract sense might be called difference from it, we arrive at the following: density δ = 1/ λ of our marble, as unit difference d=1 residing in the body of ‘difference’ size λ, appears as source for direction and rate of fastest decrease in the field of potential differences D (in the direction of our marble). In other words, taking the analogy of Coulomb’s law, our marble appears to be creating field Δ in the form: δ = div Δ = ∇ · d/d = - ∇·∇ D = -∇^2 D, i.e. field of pointers towards its actual body position in units of size λ, its ‘difference’ size along the direction of ‘sight’/observation. Something like shouting “The λ’s here!” in the sea of all potential lambdas.

In previous post, derivation of size λ came from marble touching itself (pun not intended ) which in fact includes motion, and so far we’ve only been working with static marble. Instead of ‘touching’, which is more like vibrating and vibrations in physical sense (directional motion), maybe ‘easier’ to do at first might be to rotate (circular motion), and even more so around the direction of λ (observation).

Well, why not both simultaneously, traverse distance/difference λ in the direction of observation while spinning one full circle around itself? That way, not only λ would be known as the difference in the direction of observation, but also other perpendicular ‘differences’ to it. In geometrical terms, apart from the size as radial distance d from mathematical 0 or ‘origin’, angular distance φ (from a ‘point’ in chosen direction of spinning, left-right) would also be known. And with motion in our story enters time.

Rotation is defined as angular change in time, i.e. how much time is needed for one full circle around itself (and around given axis):
Ω = (length of unit circle)/period · d/d, where second term stands for unit vector in the direction d of given axis around the rotation occurs. On the other hand, from electromagnetism we learn that rotation of electric field E induces temporal change in magnetic field B: rot E = ∇×E = - ∂B/∂t.

Now, checking the expression for rotation and recognizing our marble’s field Δ = d/d there, also writing temporal angular change as ∂φ/∂t, it starts to appear like magnetic field is analogous to a field of angular distances Φ of our marble in plane orthogonal to size direction λ = λ· d/d, which when coupled with field of potential radial distances D gives whole outer (3d space) field of potential differences.

Introduction of time period needed for one full spin around itself, apart from explicit spin, reminds me on proper time period / proper cycle T as one out of two potential time dimensions Cs have been talking about. In that context, it appears to me that proper cycle of our Universe, perhaps period (frequency) of DCM’s cyclic primal observation of Itself (in a sense of 'circular change' rotating around and about Itself), is intrinsically connected to the Wave cycling around and about our Universe.

It appears that second time dimension might be pulled out in several ways, in a sense of time needed for traversing certain radial distance or directional difference. Its usual simple term is something like velocity v and when coupled with charge (and/or mass) density creates current density j which can serve as a neat analogy model: j = ρ·v.

So, now we can write something like proper time τ / proper current density (velocity) of our marble: J = δ·v = 1/λ · λ/τ · d/d = 1/τ · d/d. In other words, our proper current density J in a sense of vibration/traverse in direction of observation WRT its proper time τ appears be related like proper spinning density (rotation) Ω and its proper period T; 'current' would be like a ‘frequency of vibrations’ in the direction of observation. Also, this time dimension of proper time would in a sense have a sense of direction through directional motion of the current/flux, i.e. forwards (future) and backwards (past).

That brings us to another interesting potential connection between electromagnetism and gravity or more appropriately light and sound. Vibrational directional current density is in fact longitudinal wave, which is another name for sound waves, longitudinal waves of pressure difference (change in 2d mass density ‘cross-section’ basically). Light on the other hand is transversal electromagnetic wave (electric and magnetic fields rotate in angular plane WRT to trajectory direction c) implying similarity with our marble’s circular motion (rotation, spinning). Also, light exerts kind of pressure in direction c in the form of Poynting’s vector or directional energy flux. In case of Tonga explosion, interestingly the transversal waves of pressure change that circled around the Earth several times, through and in its atmosphere, were referred to as transversal gravitational waves.

Anyway, to return to our proper time τ and check its connections to other observables at hand here. So far we’ve used one expression from electrostatics and one from electromagnetism, now comes one from electrodynamics to complete the round in that area of physics. Classic electrodynamics’ expression is Law of Balance (or charge conservation): ∂ρ/∂t + div j = 0. This Law says that temporal change in charge density is due to influx of current density into the system (for ‘closed’ systems, charge is conserved), implying that there would be directional motion towards more balanced state, or through small doors introducing aging in our story.

C’s saying that “Nature abhors time”, when looked through Law of Balance, brings us back to that ad hoc statement above that proper period of spinning around itself and proper time to traverse its size might be identical: ∂ρ/∂t = - div j = 0. Since geometrically speaking divergence of a curl is by definition 0, to our current density on the right side of expression we can add a rotation density of some kind without basically changing anything in mathematical terms.

So, it seems that Nature, to ‘kill some time’, at the end prefers to have our current J and rotation Ω of the same magnitude and in opposite directions: (length of unit circle) / T = (length of unit distance) / τ, so to balance the temporal change in density itself as much as possible, ∂δ/∂t = 0.

Taking into account that in our ‘flat 3d space’ full circle amounts to 2π·r, where r is radius of the circle (or 'half-size' of a spinning body), we get: 2π/T · λ/2 = λ/τ, i.e. π/T = 1/τ as a connection between circular and directional motion of our marble. In other words, going back to our 3d outer world, it appears that astronomical bodies for example might prefer overall motion in such a way to compensate their net directional momentum with their net angular momentum around given direction.

Sidenote: Seeing Uranus being only planet revolving sideways around the Sun, like rolling in the plane of ecliptic, and being skeptic about the official explanation (due to collision with Earth sized astronomical object), it seems to be good place to start checking experimental validity of above expositions.

Also, any feedback and especially highly critical ones (@ark, @Cleopatre VII et al.) pointing logical errors and nonsense that passed by unnoticed, are most welcome and appreciated.

Cordially,
Human

P.S. Toccata and Fugue in D Minor BWV 565​

 

[Human]

Reading the post here (thank you @Mike ) and quotes from the sessions with the Cs therein, I stumbled upon an oldish excerpt that quite surprised me because I was grinding my molars for some time now on almost the same issue, at least that's how I perceived it.

Jan 17 1998:

Q: Are these densities something that can be defined in terms of physics, as in divisions of reality that some significant change occurs at, say, the boundary of one density that signifies the beginning of the other?
A: This, as with so much else is so difficult for you to understand because of your limited view point. Remember, you see the densities below yours perfectly well. But they do not perceive yours as what you are.
Q: (A) They said that, in physics, we have one seventh of the equation... (L) When they said that, they were talking about matter and the direction in time of an anti-particle, which was referred to as the one-seventh. (A) But, what I mean is, animals, minerals, they are described by just one physics that we learn in school. We do not see that this is a different density.
A: Only because you know it is there. You cannot measure that which is above your level! Of perception, when you are using measuring tools which only can measure that which you perceive.
Q: (A) We are the form makers. I mean it's not Nature that is creating, it is us seeing order in potential disorder. And we see more order than animals, so it seems. Is this what is meant by higher density, being able to see more order?
A: Well, close, maybe, but you are attempting to employ a mirror to see outside.
Q: What we are trying to understand is: you have described seven densities. Three physical densities, three ethereal densities, and the one in the middle, the variable density. What we are trying to find out here is some way to express this mathematically. Some way to understand this in the universal language of mathematics. Because, if we could do that, mathematically speaking, that would help our understanding and perceptual abilities.
A: Yes, but first you must unravel the part of the puzzle which has nothing to do with mathematics.

From the things written in previous posts in this thread it's kinda obvious that I've been trying to open the nut with puzzle piece in question through math and physics, but no matter from how many different sides I tried, it just didn't crack nor the other pieces fitted in the centerpiece's place. So, finally today afternoon I said to myself "OK, loosen up that jaw, you're gonna loose some teeth if you continue this pace, just let it flow". Don't ask me please why exactly word "flow" was chosen in my mind to finish that line, your guess is good as mine. And there, it seems Divine Grace, Free Will Itself, caressed me and C's line (paraphrasing) that "our universe is Free Will Universe" popped up. Then it hit me the first time.

The Cs also said that there's no real abridging of the Free Will in our Universe, that It's at the root of it All, and kinda image of our Universe as a great ocean of Free Will appeared with the thought punnily connected with abridgement that "there's no bridge possibly large and long enough to abridge the Ocean of Everything". Next, I was thinking in lines how potential for All is like full of Free Will when it hit me again, potential for All existence basically is Free Will! And that realization, which seems true to me, perfectly fitted into the centerpiece place and unlocked all the cascades of other connections and pieces falling in their places like nails on their respective fingers.

So, the First Kick, Big Start, Great Beginning, or whatever you wanna call it, is simply:
Free Will as potential for all of existence made the Choice to Change Itself and Be actual All Existence.

Act of changing results in a difference, difference between all the potential states prior to change and actually Being All of Existence. From previous posts we can envisage a general difference as being composed of difference in particular (chosen) direction (like a λ body in a sense of a size measure as an unit distance/difference from non-existence) and all the 'angular' differences/distances in all the orthogonal directions around the λ direction.
Please note that the term used for 'origin' was "non-existence" and not 'nothing' which comes into being only in relation to other concepts like in 'nothing as lack of anything' which then further nudges us to consider leaving 'nothing' in potential for good.

After this First Change, we can now use that quasi-math or/and meta-physics described in previous posts, apply them in various ways (like Law of Three, ...) and develop kinda Rays of Creation, where all of that came to be possible with the big huge help from the Forum and the Cs.

 

[BHelmet]

I don't know, man.

11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.

What does this even mean? It could just be I lack depth, understanding, knowledge or wisdom, but, in layman's terms:

I take 'analogy' to be a story or situation that is similar or related to some other thing or idea that explains or sheds light on that related or similar thing. It is an arms-length mentation. So: This relationship or thing is similar in some way to that other one over there. But it is only an approximation, otherwise, it wouldn't be an analogy: there are essential differences.

I take the connection between "The higher beings" and "others" not to be an analogy but as some kind of actuality. The analogy is the story or the explanation. I don't see an analogy as the actual connection. The connection is not the analogy. The connection, whatever that might be, lives in a different realm from analogy, OSIT.

To say that higher beings are not connected to these "others" by composition; or to seem to say they are made of different stuff, is also a bit of a "WTH?", to me. But before that can even be addressed, don't the "higher beings" and "others" need to be defined? To me, it is not self-evident what is meant by these terms. Certainly "others" is a vague term but I take it to mean NON-higher beings. So who or what are these unrelated higher beings? Does this mean only STO higher beings? 4D STS? In many senses they are also higher beings.

Whew.

As for 1. "The world is rational"... That is another head-scratcher. What world is being talked about? I think it would not be that hard to propose a counter-argument depending on how "rational" is defined. Was Godel rational? Are the stories true? Did he really kill (starve) himself because he thought someone was out to kill him him (poison)?

So, to sum up...yeah, I got some problems with this. I realize I am not approaching this from a mathematical perspective and I am not a mathematician. Maybe that is a problem: trying to derive philosophy and/or objectivity with mathematics in a perfectly imperfect world with too many intermittent variables.

OK, I done.

Carry on.

LOL! In a nod to Godel's paranoia: What the hell does any of this matter? THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL US!

PS, Human, I do really like what you said in that last post! Just to be clear!

 

[Ina]

I am constantly dealing with the problem of scale and reality. I work with digital data in geological context and each project is a series of 'simulation experiments'. Usually the scale, where variables can measured is solved by aggregation. There are mathematical algorithms that guide with a satisfactory approximation in the allowed error margin certain theoretical models static or dynamic in space and time sufficient to emulate a certain reality at a certain scale. Before Zukky invented Meta, Oil industry was far ahead in terms of R&D virtualization, from holographic 3D displays to VR glasses and goggles. So scale was a decision-making tool rather than an elusive variable capable of changing the reality. Some human awareness, risk mitigated

Moreover, once the object of study is at electron scale, and crystals become lattices the observation results have to be produced in extremely controlled environments where the reality is minutiously constructed, and where the interpretation of such results is made by comparison or analogy. - Electron Microscopy - Marginal human awareness heavily assisted by tech.

But what if you want to study the behavior of the nodes of a metallic lattice and see what happens with the magnetic spin of the electrons when pressure, and temperature or both are dynamically controlled? - Mossbauer spectroscopy. Oy! Behind the Pb sheets the human is the slave of the highly delicate experimental setups, while collecting data for days depending on the material.

What if you want to know how and why and when energetic transfer occurs and when reality change (creation or destruction or both) happens? - Synchrotron. Here I have no direct experience I'm afraid so I cannot tell what's what with awareness and scale issue mental digestion so I go for the Schroedinger's Cat.

I believe the human race has either failed in understanding physical reality as a continuum or the reality has indeed different manifestations at different scales as the result of types physical interactions and phenomena that govern preferentially in scale of magnitude that particular scale of observation.

Having said that, the esoteric understanding of reality as a whole or continuum is mind blowing by being so occult to conscious awareness.

Quo vadis, Domine?

 

[MatiaS]

This whole discussion is flying way over my head I have to admit. I get the gist, sort of, but data is certainly missing in my knowledge-reserves. I would though just point out that I - mistakenly I would assume - first interpreted No.11. "The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition." to mean that higher beings are connected to other higher beings by analogy.

In this interpretation I'm thinking of gods of different pantheons and mythologies and how they correlate with other gods in different cultures. Zeus is Jupiter is Thor. They are analogous. Same but different.

The idea of scale is something most fascinating. Perhaps in the air/water and mass/electrical charge examples there could (should?) be added one more element to each of them to arrive at a trinity. Maybe the energetic motions in air and water also continue in the ether, and maybe beyond.

If we are indeed vessels or conduits through which the DCM orchestrates cosmic dramas as learning experiences then in effect we are, to a degree, the gods of old playing out their epic tales, be it on a microcosmic scale. Of course if we say the battle is through us then it becomes interesting. In order for something to pass through something, there needs to be empty space. We need to empty ourselves of all obstructions which don't allow energy to flow through us. I understand we do have free will but up to what degree? If we consider ourselves conduits and vectors and transmutation devices, all of which imply a kind of transition from one state/place to another, we can see our 'mission'; to go from one place to another, by means of remaining still but orienting a certain way for the Wave to carry us where we need/have to go.

Gurdjieff says we are always under some influence and the only thing we can choose is which influence we wish to be under (STS or STO). So all the time the Names of God are influencing us, blowing as a kind of Cosmic Wind a steady current of reality generating energy throughout existence, and we are merely staying in one place, in our point of awareness (quality of perception = density level), having control only over our consciousness orientation, which in turn directs our behaviors and actions. Aligning or misaligning with the Divine Will seems to be the only choice we have to, or even can make. To be or not to be.

 

[Ina]

Maybe the energetic motions in air and water also continue in the ether, and maybe beyond.

I must confess, I know nothing about ether, however, after a brief search I made a list of books about it, its properties, and behavior.

Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment by Rudolf Steiner
An Outline of Esoteric Science by Rudolf Steiner, Catherine E. Creeger
Ether-Technology by Rho Sigma, Edgar Mitchell
Physical and ethereal spaces by George Adams
A Theory Of Ether, Particles And Atoms Introduction To The Reform Of Modern Physics (Volume 1) by Igor Makarov (I suppose there are more volumes or at least one)
Occult Ether Physics 4th Revised and Expanded Edition Tesla’s Ideal Flying Machine and the Conspiracy to Conceal It by Lyne, William
Ether The Nothing That Connects Everything by Joe Milutis
A Theory of Natural Philosophy by Boscovich, Ruggero Giuseppe, 1711-1787 (very old book)

By all means, between, Tesla, Steiner, Boscovitch, and Makarov we could at least get an educated opinion about the ether.

 

[Human]

...
11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.

What does this even mean? It could just be I lack depth, understanding, knowledge or wisdom, but, in layman's terms:
...

As for 1. "The world is rational"... That is another head-scratcher. What world is being talked about? I think it would not be that hard to propose a counter-argument depending on how "rational" is defined. Was Godel rational? Are the stories true? Did he really kill (starve) himself because he thought someone was out to kill him him (poison)?

There's an oldish thread that deals with FOTCM SOP in detail, maybe you can check there for answers to your questions or/and ask in that thread if not finding them there - I'm sure guys who are more familiar with Gödel will be happy to help your understanding of SOP.

FOTCM Statement of Principles

The following are the Statement of Principles of the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind. If you are thinking of becoming a member, please read them carefully so that you understand them. If you have any questions, this thread is the place to ask. You can find more information about the FOTCM on the...

cassiopaea.org

PS, Human, I do really like what you said in that last post! Just to be clear!

Thank you!

 

[Human]

Existence.

Let's suppose that All existence - all things, everything - exists in itself, in its inner realm so to say or in inner part of its dimension of existence. It would be similar (or maybe the same) to saying that things exist inside of themselves in kinda world of their meanings, concepts or ideas of Plato or something in that direction.

So, we could say that everything exists inside of itself. Well, not everything really, when we check the opposite of existence itself, non-existence. As our Universe is Free Will universe (or multiverse as multi /infinitely many/ dimensional universe maybe), non-existence has all the rights to exist itself, if it 'wants' of course.

Non-existence's property (choice) is not to exist and we can say that inside our existence it really does not exist, allowing it to manifest itself in that way to other existence in the inner part of the dimension of existence. In the other words, non-existence does not have inner part of its dimension of existence - it's all outside, i.e. dimension of existence of non-existence has only outer part which in that way becomes outer part of dimension of existence of all existence in the inner realm.

So, all of the existence exists in itself, in its inner part of its dimension of existence, 'inside', except non-existence which - as an opposite of existence it does not exist inside of itself - manifests its existence in the inner realm of all of the existence by having only outer part of its dimension of existence. With that we also got a hint about "manifestation" - showing itself, its being or dimension of existence, to other existence (existing beings) inside All of the existence.

---------------

 

[Human]

Dimensions

When speaking of dimensions, what kind of a being would that be? Well, maybe we could represent it with a number, like n. When n =1 it would mean an actual dimension and when n >1 it would represent the size of the dimension n. Or, maybe a bit more abstract, let's say that representation of a dimension is that of a unit number 1/1. In that way, everything can be a dimension - All/All , n/n , human/human.

In connection to previous post, with this representation 1/1 we can also talk about inner and outer parts of the dimension, like 'one over the other' type of thing. In other words, numerator and denominator each would represent one 'half' of the dimension, its inner and outer parts. Regarding the 'numerical' values on outer side of the dimension, there is surely at least one, that one from non-existence which is shared with/among all existence, suggesting that denominator side is always at least 1. On the other side, the inner part of an actual dimension is also at least one, that one of actually existing dimension itself, and when higher than 1 it would denote the (inner) size of the dimension n .

By counting sizes of both 'halves' of the dimension, we might seemingly get a contradiction - two halves, each of unit size, make up an actual dimensional unit. Contradiction's resolved by introducing 'property' word "actual" onto the stage - actual unit of a dimension is made of units type number 1, ordinary units as we know/call them, two of them in fact which together make an existing dimension like 2 halves of 1 whole.

In actual dimension there's at least one ordinary unit inside of itself and also one outside - symbolically we can write 1/1.
The outside unit of non-existence is shared among all of the existence in general making the denominator size always actually larger than 1 for all beings inside All existence. In case of our dimensions, their denominator size is exactly equal to one, making them 'ideal beings' for counting things (quantifying stuff) - so, beings in existence could be represented by their dimensions of existence, Being/being or inner/outer type of thing.

~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ina]

Dimensions

When speaking of dimensions, what kind of a being would that be? Well, maybe we could represent it with a number, like n. When n =1 it would mean an actual dimension and when n >1 it would represent the size of the dimension n. Or, maybe a bit more abstract, let's say that representation of a dimension is that of a unit number 1/1. In that way, everything can be a dimension - All/All , n/n , human/human.

In connection to previous post, with this representation 1/1 we can also talk about inner and outer parts of the dimension, like 'one over the other' type of thing. In other words, numerator and denominator each would represent one 'half' of the dimension, its inner and outer parts. Regarding the 'numerical' values on outer side of the dimension, there is surely at least one, that one from non-existence which is shared with/among all existence, suggesting that denominator side is always at least 1. On the other side, the inner part of an actual dimension is also at least one, that one of actually existing dimension itself, and when higher than 1 it would denote the (inner) size of the dimension n .

By counting sizes of both 'halves' of the dimension, we might seemingly get a contradiction - two halves, each of unit size, make up an actual dimensional unit. Contradiction's resolved by introducing 'property' word "actual" onto the stage - actual unit of a dimension is made of units type number 1, ordinary units as we know/call them, two of them in fact which together make an existing dimension like 2 halves of 1 whole.

In actual dimension there's at least one ordinary unit inside of itself and also one outside - symbolically we can write 1/1.
The outside unit of non-existence is shared among all of the existence in general making the denominator size always actually larger than 1 for all beings inside All existence. In case of our dimensions, their denominator size is exactly equal to one, making them 'ideal beings' for counting things (quantifying stuff) - so, beings in existence could be represented by their dimensions of existence, Being/being or inner/outer type of thing.

~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe there is a 'bug' in human cognition. Maybe our physical awareness (exterior 1) is connected to emotional awareness ( interior 1) through a flat boundary which is our brain / thinking process. Humans tend to learn the interaction with the exterior much sooner in life and as such in order to understand, they ask for, and later create narratives, which are pictures of reality, perceiving life in only 2 dimensions. Perhaps that is the root of all 'psychological' disorders, the 2D thinking model. Humans start thinking in 3D when they are able to create functional models. 4D thinking-processes appear when humans are able to realize the interaction between models. Imagine 4D when models within the interaction start changing, and 5D when models begin transforming. 6D would witness the birth and death as complementary necessities and 7D would allow the negation which is basically replacing death with birth.
But, humans do all that through narratives synergised by belief, and faith (self actualization) two top highest needs, if you believe Maslow.
So how come, reality is so elusive?

BTW, have you ever read Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler?

 

[dennis]

relationships, analogy, metaphor, connectiveness, movement, structure, alignment, etc
I never knew this definition-

Algebra (from Arabic ‏الجبر‎ (al-jabr) 'reunion of broken parts,[1] bonesetting')[2] is one of the broad areas of mathematics. Roughly speaking, algebra is the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating these symbols in formulas;[3] it is a unifying thread of almost all of mathematics.[4]

The word algebra comes from the Arabic: الجبر, romanized: al-jabr, lit. 'reunion of broken parts,[1]bonesetting[2]' from the title of the early 9th century book cIlm al-jabr wa l-muqābala "The Science of Restoring and Balancing" by the Persian mathematician and astronomer al-Khwarizmi. In his work, the term al-jabr referred to the operation of moving a term from one side of an equation to the other, المقابلة al-muqābala "balancing" referred to adding equal terms to both sides.

Algebra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A bonesetter is a practitioner of joint manipulation. Before the advent of chiropractors, osteopaths and physical therapists, bonesetters were the main providers of this type of treatment.[1] Traditionally, they practiced without any formal training in accepted medical procedures.[2] Bonesetters would also reduce joint dislocations and "re-set" bone fractures.

Bonesetter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dennis]

There is no need to be an expert on the period or a philologist to see that al-Tabari's second citation should read "Muhammad ibn Mūsa al-Khwārizmī and al-Majūsi al-Qutrubbulli," and that there are two people (al-Khwārizmī and al-Majūsi al-Qutrubbulli) between whom the letter wa [Arabic 'و' for the conjunction 'and'] has been omitted in an early copy. This would not be worth mentioning if a series of errors concerning the personality of al-Khwārizmī, occasionally even the origins of his knowledge, had not been made. Recently, G.J. Toomer ... with naive confidence constructed an entire fantasy on the error which cannot be denied the merit of amusing the reader.
...
Another epithet given to him by al-Ṭabarī, "al-Majūsī," would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. This would still have been possible at that time for a man of Iranian origin, but the pious preface to al-Khwārizmī's Algebra shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so al-Ṭabarī's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians.
...
The above discussion uses modern mathematical notation for the types of problems that the book discusses. However, in al-Khwārizmī's day, most of this notation had not yet been invented, so he had to use ordinary text to present problems and their solutions.

Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org