RE: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
I know of no one who has any hypothesis or results that might relate to this Marks toroid thing except maybe Richard Vialle. The translations of his work aren’t very good and can be confusing. However, he seemed to assert overunity in getting electrons flowing in a coil to orbit elliptically (Rutherford model). At least that’s how I understood it. From: Jonathan Berry Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 4:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote The latter (not covered by existing theory) because it is an aether.vortex that moves with the toroid. It wasn't a magnetic reaction, it was what I would term aetheric, but it was unmistakable. It could be considered similar to the very real feeling forces that dowsers feel on dowsing rods I suspect, albeit I can't dowse. The force felt on SM's toroids might have been stronger, but it was really obvious still, my best guess is that it is an interaction between the 'aether vortex' setup by the toroid that is stuck in space at that location and the continuing vortex in the toroid, at least that is one idea. But the force was very noticeable and was just as described, but didn't need any continued electrical input much as shown in the videos, but there was electrical input earlier, can't say if that was necessary. I am sure I can replicate it, it wasn't identical to SM's toroid and it wasn't an attempt to replicate it and no attempt to collect Free Energy was made even though this makes me more certain the demo was genuine even if some limitations might have been hidden. On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 01:53, Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote: Um…… if you tried to create a Mark’s coil, what were you feeling? A very tiny interaction with earth’s magnetic field? Or something else that (AFAIK) isn’t covered by existing theory? From: Jonathan Berry mailto:jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 3:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote >I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? Imagine a massless reflective box, then put a lot of light into it, now as you try and accelerate it the walls approaching the radiation feel more radiation pressure than the ones moving away. The box suddenly appears to have more mass, what's more it also has suddenly gravitational mass as light is accepted to be manifesting a tiny bit of gravity, and indeed because it responds to gravity, for Newton to be correct light must also attract matter to it however weakly, but this is also a part of e=mc2. So we see that light can give all the familiar properties of mass to otherwise massless containers. As for Steven Mark's and his TPU, I have made steel toroidal coils and felt this washboard effect as I move the coil. On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 02:00, Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote: I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? I have a practical reason for asking. Once Upon A Time, there was a sketchy character named Mark who produced a strange device that pulled electricity out of nowhere – even though it was little more than a coil. There are still videos of this. Observers said it had an odd gyroscopic effect in handling it. So, maybe he discovered some strange rotating field effect……. But how to explain the gyroscopic “feel” to it? I don’t think about electrical or magnetic fields as having any “feelable” mass, however they might move or pulse. Oh, and read Bernardo Kastrup’s books about consciousness. He is gonzo deep. Such as his book “Materialism Is Baloney”. From: Jürg Wyttenbach mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange information. Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more important problems to solve. Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproduc
Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
The latter (not covered by existing theory) because it is an aether.vortex that moves with the toroid. It wasn't a magnetic reaction, it was what I would term aetheric, but it was unmistakable. It could be considered similar to the very real feeling forces that dowsers feel on dowsing rods I suspect, albeit I can't dowse. The force felt on SM's toroids might have been stronger, but it was really obvious still, my best guess is that it is an interaction between the 'aether vortex' setup by the toroid that is stuck in space at that location and the continuing vortex in the toroid, at least that is one idea. But the force was very noticeable and was just as described, but didn't need any continued electrical input much as shown in the videos, but there was electrical input earlier, can't say if that was necessary. I am sure I can replicate it, it wasn't identical to SM's toroid and it wasn't an attempt to replicate it and no attempt to collect Free Energy was made even though this makes me more certain the demo was genuine even if some limitations might have been hidden. On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 01:53, Chris Zell wrote: > Um…… if you tried to create a Mark’s coil, what were you feeling? > > > > A very tiny interaction with earth’s magnetic field? Or something else > that (AFAIK) isn’t covered by existing theory? > > > > *From:* Jonathan Berry > *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2022 3:18 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote > > > > >I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? > > > > Imagine a massless reflective box, then put a lot of light into it, now as > you try and accelerate it the walls approaching the radiation feel more > radiation pressure than the ones moving away. > > > > The box suddenly appears to have more mass, what's more it also has > suddenly gravitational mass as light is accepted to be manifesting a tiny > bit of gravity, and indeed because it responds to gravity, for Newton to be > correct light must also attract matter to it however weakly, but this is > also a part of e=mc2. > > > > So we see that light can give all the familiar properties of mass to > otherwise massless containers. > > > > As for Steven Mark's and his TPU, I have made steel toroidal coils and > felt this washboard effect as I move the coil. > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 02:00, Chris Zell wrote: > > I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? > > > > I have a practical reason for asking. Once Upon A Time, there was a > sketchy character named Mark who produced a strange device that pulled > electricity out of nowhere – even though it was little more than a coil. > There are still videos of this. > > Observers said it had an odd gyroscopic effect in handling it. So, maybe > he discovered some strange rotating field effect……. But how to explain the > gyroscopic “feel” to it? I don’t think about electrical or magnetic fields > as having any “feelable” mass, however they might move or pulse. > > > > Oh, and read Bernardo Kastrup’s books about consciousness. He is gonzo > deep. Such as his book “Materialism Is Baloney”. > > > > *From:* Jürg Wyttenbach > *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2022 6:35 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote > > > > According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such > can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an > action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact > act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited > to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum > configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound > "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange > information. > > Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But > I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. > In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now > mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). > > So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more > important problems to solve. > > > > Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. > Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproducible. > > > > J.W. > > > > On 29.08.2022 12:07, Jonathan Berry wrote: > > Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no > consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, > > > &g
RE: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
Um…… if you tried to create a Mark’s coil, what were you feeling? A very tiny interaction with earth’s magnetic field? Or something else that (AFAIK) isn’t covered by existing theory? From: Jonathan Berry Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 3:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote >I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? Imagine a massless reflective box, then put a lot of light into it, now as you try and accelerate it the walls approaching the radiation feel more radiation pressure than the ones moving away. The box suddenly appears to have more mass, what's more it also has suddenly gravitational mass as light is accepted to be manifesting a tiny bit of gravity, and indeed because it responds to gravity, for Newton to be correct light must also attract matter to it however weakly, but this is also a part of e=mc2. So we see that light can give all the familiar properties of mass to otherwise massless containers. As for Steven Mark's and his TPU, I have made steel toroidal coils and felt this washboard effect as I move the coil. On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 02:00, Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote: I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? I have a practical reason for asking. Once Upon A Time, there was a sketchy character named Mark who produced a strange device that pulled electricity out of nowhere – even though it was little more than a coil. There are still videos of this. Observers said it had an odd gyroscopic effect in handling it. So, maybe he discovered some strange rotating field effect……. But how to explain the gyroscopic “feel” to it? I don’t think about electrical or magnetic fields as having any “feelable” mass, however they might move or pulse. Oh, and read Bernardo Kastrup’s books about consciousness. He is gonzo deep. Such as his book “Materialism Is Baloney”. From: Jürg Wyttenbach mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange information. Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more important problems to solve. Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproducible. J.W. On 29.08.2022 12:07, Jonathan Berry wrote: Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, If something isn't seen by consciousness, does it really exist? Quantum physics often suggests it doesn't! After all we know that it's not just the photon, but also the electron that acts as a wave, not just the electron but the atom, not just the atom but the molecule that acts in a state of superposition. Where does this end? Perhaps it only ends at consciousness, consciousness collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Think of it, can subatomic particles just by chance make atoms, atoms just by chance make chemicals/molecules, chemicals just by chance forms life, life just by chance forms a brain and consciousness, consciousness without which all of the rest would be a meaningless unacknowledged phenomena. If computation cannot explain the bringing forth of presence, awareness, then consciousness isn't made by matter. If consciousness isn't made by matter then there are two possibilities. Firstly, that consciousness and matter are two independent phenomena neither causing the other. Or secondly, that matter is manifested by consciousness. We seem to find some evidence for the latter phenomena, evidence that consciousness affects reality, this would seem unlikely or absurd if consciousness were a mere product of calculation. Indeed Quantum physics has found reliable evidence that consciousness can affect matter. Consciousness is similar to existence, you can't contemplate non-existence as if there were a period of non-existence there would be no experience of it, no times, no consciousness. In the same way, existence w
Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
>I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? Imagine a massless reflective box, then put a lot of light into it, now as you try and accelerate it the walls approaching the radiation feel more radiation pressure than the ones moving away. The box suddenly appears to have more mass, what's more it also has suddenly gravitational mass as light is accepted to be manifesting a tiny bit of gravity, and indeed because it responds to gravity, for Newton to be correct light must also attract matter to it however weakly, but this is also a part of e=mc2. So we see that light can give all the familiar properties of mass to otherwise massless containers. As for Steven Mark's and his TPU, I have made steel toroidal coils and felt this washboard effect as I move the coil. On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 02:00, Chris Zell wrote: > I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? > > > > I have a practical reason for asking. Once Upon A Time, there was a > sketchy character named Mark who produced a strange device that pulled > electricity out of nowhere – even though it was little more than a coil. > There are still videos of this. > > Observers said it had an odd gyroscopic effect in handling it. So, maybe > he discovered some strange rotating field effect……. But how to explain the > gyroscopic “feel” to it? I don’t think about electrical or magnetic fields > as having any “feelable” mass, however they might move or pulse. > > > > Oh, and read Bernardo Kastrup’s books about consciousness. He is gonzo > deep. Such as his book “Materialism Is Baloney”. > > > > *From:* Jürg Wyttenbach > *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2022 6:35 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote > > > > According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such > can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an > action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact > act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited > to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum > configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound > "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange > information. > > Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But > I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. > In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now > mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). > > So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more > important problems to solve. > > > > Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. > Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproducible. > > > > J.W. > > > > On 29.08.2022 12:07, Jonathan Berry wrote: > > Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no > consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, > > > > If something isn't seen by consciousness, does it really exist? Quantum > physics often suggests it doesn't! > > > > After all we know that it's not just the photon, but also the electron > that acts as a wave, not just the electron but the atom, not just the atom > but the molecule that acts in a state of superposition. > > > > Where does this end? Perhaps it only ends at consciousness, consciousness > collapses the possibilities into a single reality. > > > > Think of it, can subatomic particles just by chance make atoms, atoms just > by chance make chemicals/molecules, chemicals just by chance forms life, > life just by chance forms a brain and consciousness, consciousness without > which all of the rest would be a meaningless unacknowledged phenomena. > > > > If computation cannot explain the bringing forth of presence, awareness, > then consciousness isn't made by matter. > > If consciousness isn't made by matter then there are two possibilities. > > > > Firstly, that consciousness and matter are two independent phenomena > neither causing the other. > > > > Or secondly, that matter is manifested by consciousness. > > > > We seem to find some evidence for the latter phenomena, evidence that > consciousness affects reality, this would seem unlikely or absurd if > consciousness were a mere product of calculation. > > > > Indeed Quantum physics has found reliable evidence that consciousness can > affect matter. > > > > Consciousness is similar to existence, you can't contemplate > non-existence as if there were a period
Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
The static magnetic field produced by the magnetic moment has mass and can be calculated according Mills. But this energy is not free! It belongs to the electron/proton. An EM radiation field contains mass-like energy that shine up at the moment the field resonates in a receiver. Basically the Lorenz force moves electrons. EM radiation fields are the only fields that contain real "free" (independent) energy. The B field of a moving electron contains energy that is coupled to the current. It can be used to locally transport energy e.g. in transformers. Basically you can produce a current even with the earth magnet field (may be the case you -Chris Zell - mentioned) by changing its flux through a "closed" wire like a coil. But for this you have to invest mechanical energy. Finally there is the 130 years old Poincaré equation ::dm = E/c^2 that describes the relation between EM energy=E and mass. J.W. On 29.08.2022 16:00, Chris Zell wrote: I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? I have a practical reason for asking. Once Upon A Time, there was a sketchy character named Mark who produced a strange device that pulled electricity out of nowhere – even though it was little more than a coil. There are still videos of this. Observers said it had an odd gyroscopic effect in handling it. So, maybe he discovered some strange rotating field effect……. But how to explain the gyroscopic “feel” to it? I don’t think about electrical or magnetic fields as having any “feelable” mass, however they might move or pulse. Oh, and read Bernardo Kastrup’s books about consciousness. He is gonzo deep. Such as his book “Materialism Is Baloney”. *From:* Jürg Wyttenbach *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2022 6:35 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange information. Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more important problems to solve. Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproducible. J.W. On 29.08.2022 12:07, Jonathan Berry wrote: Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, If something isn't seen by consciousness, does it really exist? Quantum physics often suggests it doesn't! After all we know that it's not just the photon, but also the electron that acts as a wave, not just the electron but the atom, not just the atom but the molecule that acts in a state of superposition. Where does this end? Perhaps it only ends at consciousness, consciousness collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Think of it, can subatomic particles just by chance make atoms, atoms just by chance make chemicals/molecules, chemicals just by chance forms life, life just by chance forms a brain and consciousness, consciousness without which all of the rest would be a meaningless unacknowledged phenomena. If computation cannot explain the bringing forth of presence, awareness, then consciousness isn't made by matter. If consciousness isn't made by matter then there are two possibilities. Firstly, that consciousness and matter are two independent phenomena neither causing the other. Or secondly, that matter is manifested by consciousness. We seem to find some evidence for the latter phenomena, evidence that consciousness affects reality, this would seem unlikely or absurd if consciousness were a mere product of calculation. Indeed Quantum physics has found reliable evidence that consciousness can affect matter. Consciousness is similar to existence, you can't contemplate non-existence as if there were a period of non-existence there would be no experience of it, no times, no consciousness. In the same way, existence without consciousness is either absurd or at least without any possible value. So consciousness is as essential as exististance, consciousness is existen
RE: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
I don’t understand what “EM mass” means. Can a EMF field have mass? I have a practical reason for asking. Once Upon A Time, there was a sketchy character named Mark who produced a strange device that pulled electricity out of nowhere – even though it was little more than a coil. There are still videos of this. Observers said it had an odd gyroscopic effect in handling it. So, maybe he discovered some strange rotating field effect……. But how to explain the gyroscopic “feel” to it? I don’t think about electrical or magnetic fields as having any “feelable” mass, however they might move or pulse. Oh, and read Bernardo Kastrup’s books about consciousness. He is gonzo deep. Such as his book “Materialism Is Baloney”. From: Jürg Wyttenbach Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange information. Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more important problems to solve. Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproducible. J.W. On 29.08.2022 12:07, Jonathan Berry wrote: Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, If something isn't seen by consciousness, does it really exist? Quantum physics often suggests it doesn't! After all we know that it's not just the photon, but also the electron that acts as a wave, not just the electron but the atom, not just the atom but the molecule that acts in a state of superposition. Where does this end? Perhaps it only ends at consciousness, consciousness collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Think of it, can subatomic particles just by chance make atoms, atoms just by chance make chemicals/molecules, chemicals just by chance forms life, life just by chance forms a brain and consciousness, consciousness without which all of the rest would be a meaningless unacknowledged phenomena. If computation cannot explain the bringing forth of presence, awareness, then consciousness isn't made by matter. If consciousness isn't made by matter then there are two possibilities. Firstly, that consciousness and matter are two independent phenomena neither causing the other. Or secondly, that matter is manifested by consciousness. We seem to find some evidence for the latter phenomena, evidence that consciousness affects reality, this would seem unlikely or absurd if consciousness were a mere product of calculation. Indeed Quantum physics has found reliable evidence that consciousness can affect matter. Consciousness is similar to existence, you can't contemplate non-existence as if there were a period of non-existence there would be no experience of it, no times, no consciousness. In the same way, existence without consciousness is either absurd or at least without any possible value. So consciousness is as essential as exististance, consciousness is existence. Most (all) apparent unconsciousness is just a lower level of consciousness. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06 CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
According to the new SO(4) physics model all mass is EM mass and as a such can go into resonance with all other EM mass. If the energies match then an action may happen. Even more interesting is that EM fields in fact act/resonate instantaneously. Only a follow up mass like action is limited to the speed of light. The transfer of information = change in quantum configuration is not bound to energy. So factually all mass bound "information states" in the universe can be in direct contact and exchange information. Consciousness awareness is the highest level of culture we can attain. But I doubt that dumb animals feel unhappy about not knowing that they exist. In fact this knowledge is the biggest burden we carry and as it look now mankind is unable to do so. (See also the movie planet of the monkeys). So before we discuss about the fiction of a big bang we have 10% more important problems to solve. Help to save the planet.E.g. by supporting Russ George and his OPR work. Or by supporting our cold fusion work that is 100% reproducible. J.W. On 29.08.2022 12:07, Jonathan Berry wrote: Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, If something isn't seen by consciousness, does it really exist? Quantum physics often suggests it doesn't! After all we know that it's not just the photon, but also the electron that acts as a wave, not just the electron but the atom, not just the atom but the molecule that acts in a state of superposition. Where does this end? Perhaps it only ends at consciousness, consciousness collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Think of it, can subatomic particles just by chance make atoms, atoms just by chance make chemicals/molecules, chemicals just by chance forms life, life just by chance forms a brain and consciousness, consciousness without which all of the rest would be a meaningless unacknowledged phenomena. If computation cannot explain the bringing forth of presence, awareness, then consciousness isn't made by matter. If consciousness isn't made by matter then there are two possibilities. Firstly, that consciousness and matter are two independent phenomena neither causing the other. Or secondly, that matter is manifested by consciousness. We seem to find some evidence for the latter phenomena, evidence that consciousness affects reality, this would seem unlikely or absurd if consciousness were a mere product of calculation. Indeed Quantum physics has found reliable evidence that consciousness can affect matter. Consciousness is similar to existence, you can't contemplate non-existence as if there were a period of non-existence there would be no experience of it, no times, no consciousness. In the same way, existence without consciousness is either absurd or at least without any possible value. So consciousness is as essential as exististance, consciousness is existence. Most (all) apparent unconsciousness is just a lower level of consciousness. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
Consider if there was no consciousness, matter and stars and life, but no consciousness, it is beyond comprehension, If something isn't seen by consciousness, does it really exist? Quantum physics often suggests it doesn't! After all we know that it's not just the photon, but also the electron that acts as a wave, not just the electron but the atom, not just the atom but the molecule that acts in a state of superposition. Where does this end? Perhaps it only ends at consciousness, consciousness collapses the possibilities into a single reality. Think of it, can subatomic particles just by chance make atoms, atoms just by chance make chemicals/molecules, chemicals just by chance forms life, life just by chance forms a brain and consciousness, consciousness without which all of the rest would be a meaningless unacknowledged phenomena. If computation cannot explain the bringing forth of presence, awareness, then consciousness isn't made by matter. If consciousness isn't made by matter then there are two possibilities. Firstly, that consciousness and matter are two independent phenomena neither causing the other. Or secondly, that matter is manifested by consciousness. We seem to find some evidence for the latter phenomena, evidence that consciousness affects reality, this would seem unlikely or absurd if consciousness were a mere product of calculation. Indeed Quantum physics has found reliable evidence that consciousness can affect matter. Consciousness is similar to existence, you can't contemplate non-existence as if there were a period of non-existence there would be no experience of it, no times, no consciousness. In the same way, existence without consciousness is either absurd or at least without any possible value. So consciousness is as essential as exististance, consciousness is existence. Most (all) apparent unconsciousness is just a lower level of consciousness.
Re: [Vo]:Max Planck quote
Reality is a derivative of consciousness. On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 6:48 PM H LV wrote: > “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from > consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk > about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” -- > Max Planck > > Source: The Observer (25 January 1931) >
[Vo]:Max Planck quote
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” -- Max Planck Source: The Observer (25 January 1931)
