On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Pilar Morales <pilarmorales...@gmail.com> wrote: > Craig, I'm wondering what would make my internal processes come up with not > identical, but similar conclusions to what your theory seems to suggest.
I love it. That's what I'm looking for, agreement or disagreement that I can agree with. > I went through your page and could relate to the questions you posed and saw a > reflection of my own tendencies to integrate absolutely everything I > observe, internally and externally into a category to explain everything. To > me, anything I think that sounds new-agey is an internal tell tale that I'm > going in the wrong direction. It's just the way my compass is calibrated, > but I don't deny its existence. It's hard for me to get across two seemingly paradoxical motivations I have with this info. On the one hand I feel like I have to really come down hard on the OMMM worldview because I feel like our intelligence, individually and collectively, is at the far extreme of the pendulum swing at this time in our history, and that many of the problems of civilization are a consequence of this extremism. It seems like if I don't take a really critical stance at the problems I see with it, then my ideas will automatically be seen as able to be integrated or dismissed within the prevailing paradigm rather than offer a comprehensive shift from it. On the other hand, I want to make it clear that individually and collectively we NEED this extreme quantitative logical skill as well. I'm not anti-science, I'm saying that science needs to go further and embrace all phenomena that we encounter and not just what can be neatly nailed down. We need to be objective about subjectivity and not be seduced by the sentimental attachment to literalism when understanding processes of metaphor. So yes, it's extremely important that some of us focus exclusively on the their specialty areas of consciousness, but I think the world desperately needs a new general worldview that embraces subjectivity scientifically, without reducing it to mechanism, so that civilization doesn't regress into fundamentalism, and so that we can move forward into an era of post- religion, post-materialism. > My... intuition? tells me that it is all math, holy math if you will. An > abstract class where we, humans and atoms alike, invoke and experience its > instantiations. I agree, holy math is part of it, but I think that profane physics is the other part. Pain and pleasure are not reducible to numbers. Qualia must be experienced first hand or not at all. In the qualitative realm, math is a forensic afterthought that is of limited use, just as New Age intuition is a naive jumping to conclusions that is is of limited use in the quantitative realm. It's still in there though, otherwise anyone could be a math genius. You have to have a feel for numbers, know them intimately, love their patterns rather than fear them, etc. There is subjectivity there too. > Regarding your thoughts on photon behavior, it seemed to me that you are > saying that photons are the quantum entanglement of spacetime. Close, but I also think that spacetime itself doesn't exist independently of matter and energy. Space is literally nothing but the relation between two material objects and time is nothing but the relation between experiences (energy, events, and experience are more or less the same thing. It's an inter-subjective perception of change from one state to another). >That they > don't really travel through a medium, but that they will manifest through > the entanglement of a sender and a receiver? Right. It's sort of an unimagining of the model we assume when we turn on a radio. We have been taught that there are radio waves in the atmosphere, whereas my model describes an antenna imitating a broadcast tower by tuning into the same metallic mood frequency. You are listening to your ears hearing a speaker amplified antenna which is hearing a radio tower that is broadcasting a microphone that is hearing vocal chords being motivated by a human mind. They are all calling out to each other in their own languages to share the same mathematical invariance, yet the math is meaningless without being listened to in the right way by the right organizations of the right materials. The organization alone is not a radio show. The math is wavy, and it propagates in a wave like pattern terrestrially, but there is no literal wave propagates in space. What I'm thinking then, is that photons are useful figments of mathematics used to describe the logical underpinnings of this process. On the microcosmic level, it could be considered molecular quorum sensing. Like biological quorum sensing only without a chemical substrate; it's just telesemantic, jumping across a vacuum like these words are jumping across the internet, your screen, your eyes, brain, and mind. The message is not a projectile traveling through space, it is sensorimotive process executed electromagnetically across a temporary separation of space and time. Entanglement across space in this way I imagine is akin to sharing a feeling. It's produced simultaneously within each node rather than transported externally. Latency is not the result of zero permittivity and permeability in a vacuum, it is the logical consequence of perceptual relativity - an illusion of perspective which actually is what we experience as timespace as distance between phenomena of different scales and frequencies must be ordered with respect to the relations between different perceptual frames of reference. Light from a star takes a long time in human years to arrive on Earth, because the distances are on an astronomical scale and we aren't. That has to be honored to retain the integrity of the timespace illusion. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
