Quantum Physics Question

EmeraldHope

The Living Force
Hello!

I have a question, possibly for Ark, as I have no way to really address this myself since I am not the best in the world at math.

Is there any truth to the forumula r >= 0 ?

I am getting this info here: _http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Celestial-Human(1897059).htm

Specifically:

We offer a straightforward challenge to all scientists. Can you shoot down r >= 0? Does it not provide a better explanation of reality than anything science has hitherto produced? Does it not address all of the fundamental conceptual difficulties of cutting-edge science? Does it not offer a true Grand Unified Theory of everything, including philosophy and religion

Thanks in advance.
 
EmeraldHope said:
Hello!
I have a question, possibly for Ark, as I have no way to really address this myself since I am not the best in the world at math.

Is there any truth to the forumula r >= 0 ?

I am getting this info here: _http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Celestial-Human(1897059).htm

Specifically:

We offer a straightforward challenge to all scientists. Can you shoot down r >= 0? Does it not provide a better explanation of reality than anything science has hitherto produced? Does it not address all of the fundamental conceptual difficulties of cutting-edge science? Does it not offer a true Grand Unified Theory of everything, including philosophy and religion

Thanks in advance.


Hi EmeraldHope. I'm not speaking for Ark, but as you say "I have no way to really address this myself...", perhaps I could offer an input?

I read the web page. There are some interesting ideas concerning relating the Universe to a human being from the human being point of view, but my personal sense is that the analogy provided limits the Universe to a "human-type" being, when it might possibly be a Being of Such Infinite Enormity that the "human" aspect of it is only a small band of frequencies within the totality. But this is just my speculation.

The site asks:
Is the universe a person? Does it have a physical body (the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe), and a mind (the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of the universe)? If a human being with a body and mind is the “microcosm”, is the “celestial human”, with a body and mind on a literally universal scale, the “macrocosm”?


The pivotal point of the presentation seems to revolve around this:

Anything not forbidden is compulsory. If it is possible for the universe to achieve the ultimate actualisation of its latent potential then it will do so. And if that supreme evolutionary endpoint is what we call God then God is not only not forbidden, he is compulsory. The universe can, must and will achieve the maximum perfection of which it is capable, and that culmination is God.
_http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Celestial-Human%281897059%29.htm


I believe the sentence in bold comes from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. His essay on "What Is Government?" is quite well known:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

—P.-J. Proudhon, "What Is Government?", General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon


To me, what Proudhon was looking for was an alternative logic system that would help address the problems of the time and suggest the solutions. His logic system does recognize the need for a "fourth state": i.e., "not forbidden" - in order to work, and the state "not forbidden" does seem to be related to the concept of the "included middle" as it addresses his concern about tyrannical societies wherein "everything not forbidden is compulsory".

The problem? The state "not forbidden" (or "possibly") does not make the conclusion compulsory, but does assert that it is allowable. And that just brings us back to the Scientific Method that requires observation, forming hypothesis, testing, refining, etc.

And that is what Laura, Ark, et al are doing, osit.

I hope this was not too confusing. I cannot address the math, myself, because I have no clue what the placeholders represent. :(
 
EmeraldHope said:
Is there any truth to the forumula r >= 0 ?

Can you explain what you mean? If r=2, then certainly r>=0 is true. If r=-1, then r>=0 is evidently false.
 
ark said:
EmeraldHope said:
Is there any truth to the forumula r >= 0 ?

Can you explain what you mean? If r=2, then certainly r>=0 is true. If r=-1, then r>=0 is evidently false.

Hi Ark. It has been a while since I was looking at this material. I was trying to reconcile what was being said over there with Laura's material. A lot of it sounds pretty good, and the books that are written over there are pretty interesting. I have figured it out for the most part now, where the divergences are.

I was working on practicing discernment skills at that time. My reasonsing was, if this mathematical equation was not provable, or was just gobbledy gook-then the rest could be easily tossed. As I said, I do not have the skill set to do anything with the math.

Years ago, I was trying to do the same thing with Val Valerian's material. I found a paper that you had written, where you had found some of his math questionable. That is how I initially found Laura's work, through you. So I thought that here you might could easily look at it and know it was baloney.

This was the section I was looking at, from the link above:

Immanuel Kant's "transcendental idealism" is the view that the human mind is configured to impose space and time, cause and effect on the external world i.e. these things are not authentic properties of the external world. Our minds create a world of appearances - phenomena - that has no relationship whatsoever to the world of things as they are in themselves - noumena. Because we can't escape from our own minds, we can never gain genuine knowledge of the noumenal world. It's as though we are wearing time-and-space/cause-and-effect goggles that we can never remove. No matter what, we will always see time and space, cause and effect even though they have nothing to do with the true nature of things. We can have knowledge only of mind-generated phenomena and never of noumena.

The noumenal world is outside space and time i.e. it is analogous to r = 0 except whereas the noumenal world, for Kant, is completely unknowable, r = 0, for Illuminists, can be completely known.

Schopenhauer took Kant's theory a radical step forward. He concluded that space and time create the appearance of separate things, but in the noumenal universe, where space and time don't exist, then nothing is separate. Whereas Kant thought a different noumenon corresponded to, and underpinned, each individual phenomenon, Schopenhauer realized that there could only be one noumenon which he called "Will": the irrepressible, eternal striving to exist, to survive. There is one universal Will but, in the world of appearances, it manifests itself in the myriad things of the phenomenal world. Trees, water, insects, rocks, stars, air, humans - they are all just different expressions of the single, fundamental, universal Will to exist. Every human is an embodiment of this Will. Our bodies are objectified Will. Schopenhauer said, "My body and my will are one."

So, for Schopenhauer, there is an outer, "objective", physical world of time, space and causation and an inner, subjective, "mental" world of Will, outwith time, space and causation. The outer world of appearances is illusory and the inner world of Will is the true nature of existence where everything is unified. Existence, in its rawest form, is pure Will.

Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hinduism and Buddhism offer no explanation (other than the "will of God/Nature") as to why the world should have this rather extraordinary dual nature of an illusory level of appearances overlying noumenal truth (which is usually conceived of in terms of a transcendent unity).

Idealism denies the reality of the r > 0 physical universe, consigning it to the level of an illusion in the mind. Idealism does not, however, account for what purpose is served by this fantastically elaborate illusion. For example, if there are vast galaxies in deep space that we have only discovered in the last few decades, what function is served by adding these to our "prior" illusion in which they played no part (because we knew nothing of their existence)? It seems far simpler to conclude that the r > 0 universe is real and that science gives us meaningful and legitimate knowledge of it. We discover genuinely new things, not new elements, previously hidden from us, of a grand illusion.

Those who subscribe to scientific materialism, on the other hand, take the opposite stance to idealists and deny the reality of the r = 0 aspect of the universe.

Idealism and materialism are two extreme views that both miss the mark. The truth is that r = 0 (idealism) and r > 0 (materialism) are both aspects of the genuine reality: the r >= 0 mental and physical universe.

Materialists are wrong to deny dimensionless existence, and idealists are wrong to regard dimensional existence as an illusion. Illuminism is the reconciliation of the two major philosophical traditions. Dimensional and dimensionless existence are both real; neither is an illusion. They work together dialectically and each influences the other. The r > 0 is psychosomatic i.e. the "body" is influenced by the "mind", and the r = 0 universe is somapsychic i.e. the "mind" is influenced by the "body". The profound mysteries that science has hitherto failed to penetrate are caused by science's neglect of the dimensionless universe. Equally, the absurdities that many religions and philosophies (based on idealism) fall into are caused by the neglect of the dimensional universe.

What could be simpler than the coexistence of the dimensional and the dimensionless, of time, space, causation and the principle of individuation (plurality) on the one hand, and timelessness, spacelessness, free will and the principle of interconnectedness (unity) on the other? All the problems of science, philosophy and religion disappear in the r >= 0 universe.

Take the age-old problem of free will. In the r > 0 universe, where everything is seemingly controlled by inexorable scientific laws of cause and effect, there is no room for free will. Everything is inescapably determined by the preceding scientific cause. However, once the r = 0 aspect of the universe is introduced, which stands outside scientific time, space and causation, then the causal chain that precludes free will is broken. Hence our experience of free will is no mere illusion, as the most rigorous materialists would contend.

Death in the "mortal" r > 0 domain of time and space is the definite end, but in the r = 0 universe where time and space do not apply, nothing can truly perish. Everything is, in a sense, immortal.

The human brain is the r > 0 manifestation of the r = 0 human mind, thus resolving the mystery of the relationship of brain to mind. But if the human mind is a portal to the r = 0 aspect of the universe (a "microscopic" portal in comparison with black hole singularities which are macroscopic portals) then it is also a portal to the Absolute Mind, the Mind of God.

Imagine that every human mind is unwittingly connected to the greatest mind of all. Most of us never conceive of such a connection; only mystics and those well versed in the esoteric arts have learned how to make use of this channel to the divine. But, every now and again, some of us inadvertently glimpse what is normally hidden.

When we go to sleep, we (largely) shut off our physical r > 0 senses, and then we dream. Time and space become wildly distorted; dead people can appear; we can have transcendent visions. This is exactly what we would expect if our minds were "free-floating" through the r = 0 universe.



edited: spelling
 
We offer a straightforward challenge to all scientists. Can you shoot down r >= 0?
As was stated. r=-1 does not satisfy that inequality.

Does it not provide a better explanation of reality than anything science has hitherto produced?
It provides no explanation of reality.
Does it not address all of the fundamental conceptual difficulties of cutting-edge science? Does it not offer a true Grand Unified Theory of everything, including philosophy and religion
It does none of this. It is an inequality with one variable, and the variable hasn't even been defined. It seems as though the author was attempting to use it as some sort of analogy for the material vs. the ethereal, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I am failing to see the point, if one exists.
 
Is there any truth to the forumula r >= 0 ?

Hi EH,
you still didn't provide any definition of the "r" but from the quote below I understand that's a radius of a physical universe. Which one and how is it defined in that book/section? When you talk in math language you have to define precisely terms and variables, otherwise what you get is just word salad.

In any case, what do you think "r<0" would mean? Is any one talking about such a possibility? Not in the quote. I'm not a physicist but if "r<0" is out of picture then r>=0 must be true, though it says nothing about reality imo, that's just basic arithmetics and that's what I can get from the quote. Hope it helps.
 
Possibility of Being said:
Is there any truth to the forumula r >= 0 ?

Hi EH,
you still didn't provide any definition of the "r" but from the quote below I understand that's a radius of a physical universe. Which one and how is it defined in that book/section? When you talk in math language you have to define precisely terms and variables, otherwise what you get is just word salad.

In any case, what do you think "r<0" would mean? Is any one talking about such a possibility? Not in the quote. I'm not a physicist but if "r<0" is out of picture then r>=0 must be true, though it says nothing about reality imo, that's just basic arithmetics and that's what I can get from the quote. Hope it helps.


I quoted just that particular part to give the general idea. My first thought was that I needed to quote the whole page so it would make sense, but I did not want to do that beacuse that felt like I would be quoting too much. That is why, when I initially asked the question in the original post, I just put in the link. I did not feel it could be taken out in parts, out of context. I found it interesting because that is a pretty bold challenge they are making to scientists, and it struck me at the time that it could be a good tool to use to convince people like myself who have no way of proving/disproving it ,that there was valididty, else they would not make that challenge. So I recognized a possible trap, so to speak.

Here, is what they are meaning with r<0. R is never given an exact meaning per say, other than this reference, in the inital opening of the topic:

Is the universe a person? Does it have a physical body (the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe), and a mind (the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of the universe)? If a human being with a body and mind is the “microcosm”, is the “celestial human”, with a body and mind on a literally universal scale, the “macrocosm”?
 
EmeraldHope said:
I quoted just that particular part to give the general idea. My first thought was that I needed to quote the whole page so it would make sense

I looked through the whole page. It did not help. Perhaps the author added this formula just to impress the reader. And evidently some readers are impressed. When you see a formula that does not make sense to you, you are impressed, aren't you? Many authors know it and use it.
 
ark said:
EmeraldHope said:
I quoted just that particular part to give the general idea. My first thought was that I needed to quote the whole page so it would make sense

I looked through the whole page. It did not help. Perhaps the author added this formula just to impress the reader. And evidently some readers are impressed. When you see a formula that does not make sense to you, you are impressed, aren't you? Many authors know it and use it.

That is what I thought the reason it was there was for:

quote from EH
I found it interesting because that is a pretty bold challenge they are making to scientists, and it struck me at the time that it could be a good tool to use to convince people like myself who have know way of proving/disproving it ,that there was valididty, else they would not make that challenge. So I recognized a possible trap, so to speak.
 
EmeraldHope said:
Here, is what they are meaning with r<0. R is never given an exact meaning per say, other than this reference, in the inital opening of the topic:

Is the universe a person? Does it have a physical body (the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe), and a mind (the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of the universe)? If a human being with a body and mind is the “microcosm”, is the “celestial human”, with a body and mind on a literally universal scale, the “macrocosm”?

No, there is nothing there about "what they are meaning with r<0".

If there is no exact meaning given to the r, then there's no point to debate on the inequality. Actually, there is no point to introduce that variable other than to confuse and/or impress those readers who can be impressed or confused (or both).
 
Possibility of Being said:
EmeraldHope said:
Here, is what they are meaning with r<0. R is never given an exact meaning per say, other than this reference, in the inital opening of the topic:

Is the universe a person? Does it have a physical body (the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe), and a mind (the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of the universe)? If a human being with a body and mind is the “microcosm”, is the “celestial human”, with a body and mind on a literally universal scale, the “macrocosm”?

No, there is nothing there about "what they are meaning with r<0".

If there is no exact meaning given to the r, then there's no point to debate on the inequality. Actually, there is no point to introduce that variable other than to confuse and/or impress those readers who can be impressed or confused (or both).
Yeah it reminds me of someone I know online who has a "model" with no actual math and no physics either in spite of how impressive it might sound to some, the "model" begins:

Since the first manifestation of the cosmos is an infinitely inflated electro-gravitational field that is equivalent to the mass energy of total spacetime ... What's wrong with the initial premise that such a radiant field must have begun with a source of equivalent potential energy compacted within its zero-point center of origin?"
 
Possibility of Being said:
EmeraldHope said:
Here, is what they are meaning with r<0. R is never given an exact meaning per say, other than this reference, in the inital opening of the topic:

Is the universe a person? Does it have a physical body (the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe), and a mind (the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of the universe)? If a human being with a body and mind is the “microcosm”, is the “celestial human”, with a body and mind on a literally universal scale, the “macrocosm”?

No, there is nothing there about "what they are meaning with r<0".

If there is no exact meaning given to the r, then there's no point to debate on the inequality. Actually, there is no point to introduce that variable other than to confuse and/or impress those readers who can be impressed or confused (or both).

Thank you. If I had known that I could have spotted it easily and never had to have asked the question here. I thought I could be missing something possibly that would be easily discernable to someone efficient in this type of math. At least you all have helped me get confirmation to myself that it was indeed a trap for the unwary, and that my initial assumtion of that if this was hooey then it was all cointelpro of some sort was correct. Someone I know in real life was taken in for a while with this website. I was trying to help her see where the pitfalls were, as it was a good exercise for me.
 
If r=0, then the resulting circle is just a point, which the quoted theory lacks, therefore it appears that the Armageddon Conspiracy folks are living in a r>0 universe :halo:
 
WhiteBear said:
If r=0, then the resulting circle is just a point, which the quoted theory lacks, therefore it appears that the Armageddon Conspiracy folks are living in a r>0 universe :halo:

Don't forget r can be Imaginary or, even worse, it can be one of the dreaded Quaternions! What then? Will you call non-associative Octonions for help?
 
The whole thing reminds me of Dan Winter and his "heartmath" and Anna Hayes AKA Asyhana Deane and her "Keylontic Science".
 
Back
Top Bottom