Heaven, is a State of Mind

The idea about heaven in the regard with which you ponder, is it not very far away then? Meaning, that heaven is really right next door to you all the time. Heaven then, could be a state of mind, consciousness where we can move in time in very interesting ways. Heaven literally then, could sit in the very same space that you are standing in? So this idea then rests on how one may interpret geometric dimensional attributes as facets and degrees with which we access not only the future, but about how that future affects the past.

 I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?

• From Cosmic religion: with other opinions and aphorisms (1931), Albert Einstein, pub. Covici-Friede. Quoted in The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press; 2nd edition (May 30, 2000); Page 208, ISBN 0691070210

While in the film we see physical manifestations as gravitational waves,  as a bar code and a distribution of dust according to those patterns, these are derivatives of some higher dimensional thinking being communicated from the Tesseract, as books falling to the floor. So the gravitational waves have "a source" from which information is attained. The watch,  as time being communicated in the second hand. We use time as a means of representing a fourth physical dimension.

Penrose's Influence on Escher
During the later half of the 1950’s, Maurits Cornelius Escher received a letter from Lionel and Roger Penrose. This letter consisted of a report by the father and son team that focused on impossible figures. By this time, Escher had begun exploring impossible worlds. He had recently produced the lithograph Belvedere based on the “rib-cube,” an impossible cuboid named by Escher (Teuber 161). However, the letter by the Penroses, which would later appear in the British Journal of Psychology, enlightened Escher to two new impossible objects; the Penrose triangle and the Penrose stairs. With these figures, Escher went on to create further impossible worlds that break the laws of three-dimensional space, mystify one’s mind, and give a window to the artist heart.

I think artists in some way explore these limitations of how such a thought construct could have been realized and in regards to Dali (are such dimensional attributes really inaccessible to the mind?), while we may make comments on his character, this does not limit one to realize how the Tesseractbecomes the measure that heaven can be seen in the construct of such thoughts you are engaged in.

The implied idea of symmetry(the God Particle),  possibly, as to perfection in the way one may look at heaven and in Plato's case regardless of how old the philosophy is, it helps to point to some ideas about how the Catholic religion in Rome grabbed hold of Plato by a finger, as pointing up in relation to Aristotle in the School of Athen's fresco done by Raphael in the Signatore's rooms at the Vatican.

An Argument Against the Platonic World

 Pierre Curie (1894): “Asymmetry is what creates a phenomenon.”

 Against symmetry,  is what constitutes time as a measure. So there is this argument in there too.:)

My aim in this essay is to propose a conception of mathematics that is fully consonant with naturalism. By that I mean the hypothesis that everything that exists is part of the natural world, which makes up a unitary whole. This is in contradiction with the Platonic view of mathematics held by many physicists and mathematicians according to which, mathematical truths are facts about mathematical objects which exist in a separate, timeless realm of reality, which exists apart from and in addition to physical reality. -A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics

 The point I think I am making, is that in issuance of any position, any idea has to emerge from an a prior state in order for the "unitary whole" to be fully understood? Timeless, becomes an illogical position, since any idea in itself becomes an "asymmetrical view" as a product of the phenomenal world. Symmetry then implies, a need for, and a better description of the unitary whole.

There is a constant theme that I observed with Lee Smolin regarding the effectiveness of the idea about what the Platonic world means in face of being a realist of the natural world. So in one stroke,  if we could but eliminate the question about the Platonic world of forms,  would we see that Platonism is a duelist of nature, and not a realist of the kind that exists as a product of the natural world. But more then this, the idea somehow that the platonic world is a timeless truth about our existence.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner

The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself: certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess. However, this is not our present subject. The principal point which will have to be recalled later is that the mathematician could formulate only a handful of interesting theorems without defining concepts beyond those contained in the axioms and that the concepts outside those contained in the axioms are defined with a view of permitting ingenious logical operations which appeal to our aesthetic sense both as operations and also in their results of great generality and simplicity.

[3 M. Polanyi, in his Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1958), says: "All these difficulties are but consequences of our
refusal to see that mathematics cannot be defined without acknowledging
its most obvious feature: namely, that it is interesting" (p 188).]

So you can see that I attain one end of the argument,  against being a naturalist,  given I hold to views about the Platonic world? Against FXQi, and its awarding program regarding the selection of the subject as an awardee, if I counter Lee's perspective?

There are many other classes of things that are evoked. There are forms of poetry and music that have rigid rules which define vast or countably infinite sets of possible realizations. They were invented, it is absurd to think that haiku or the blues existed before particular people made the first one. Once defined there are many discoveries to be made exploring the landscape of possible realizations of the rules. A master may experience the senses of discovery, beauty and wonder, but these are not arguments for the prior or timeless existence of the art form independent of human creativity.  See:  A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physicsBy Lee Smolin

I have my own views about what constitutes what a naturalist is in face of what Lee Smolin grants it to be in face of the argument regarding what is an false as an argument about what is invented or discovered.  So of course,  full and foremost, what is a naturalist?

But again,  let us be reminded of the poet or the artist,

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty, a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry. --BERTRAND RUSSELL, Study of Mathematics

***

You see, Lee Smolin's argument regarding naturalism falls apart when we consider the context of the nature of the quasi-crystal given,  we understand the nature of the quasi-crystal signature? It is necessary to understand this history.



See Also:

• The Truth of Symmetry 
• The Form of the Good
• Foundations of Mathematics

Pure States

The direct realist view [11] is incredible because it suggests that we can have experience of objects out in the world directly, beyond the sensory surface, as if bypassing the chain of sensory processing. The pattern of electrochemical activity that corresponds to our conscious experience can take a form that reflects the properties of external objects, but our consciousness is necessarily confined to the experience of those internal effigies of external objects, rather than of external objects themselves. Unless the principle of direct perception can be demonstrated in a simple artificial sensory system, this explanation remains as mysterious as the property of consciousness it is supposed to explain.[1] But the indirect realist view is also incredible, for it suggests that the world that we perceive is merely a pattern of energy in the physical brain inside our head. This could only mean that the head we have come to know as our own is not our true physical head, but merely a miniature copy of it inside a copy of the world contained within our true physical skull. outside.The external world and its phenomenal replica cannot be spatially superimposed, for one is inside your physical head, and the other is The existential vertigo occasioned by this concept of perception is so disorienting that only a handful of researchers have seriously entertained this notion or pursued its implications to its logical conclusion. (Kant 1781/1991, Koffka 1935, Köhler 1971 p. 125, Russell 1927 pp 137–143, Smythies 1989, 1994, current, Harrison 1989, Hoffman 1998, Lehar current, Hameroff current)"[1]
Direct and indirect realism

What is the value of an awareness of "a construct" that we would assign as a background a formulation of the perceived by the perceiver? An archetype, created? A top down recognition in the square of opposition's use of the transcendent which could reveal an understanding of the essence of universals in face of "statistical prediction" in today's world? Symmetry.

A digital manifestation perhaps then that is clearly marked as to a recognition of a type of realism, or is it just noise(coherence as a contradiction). I might say that the realism here suggests to me a underlying recognition of the ability to perceive, to recognize facets of it own creation as to suggest, that it is quite capable of its ability to perceive beyond the confines of the construct given as a reality.

 The connection between superfluidity and symmetry breaking has had a glorious history. It has left us a rich legacy of fertile ideas, that seems far from exhaustion. PG 60 Superfluidity and Symmetry Breaking

***

Yes there were thoughts about the nature of the gap and you had asked to me to define this. I had trouble doing so even though the nature of the reduction was a gap with which information to me was accessible.

"Penrose Physics, Microtubules & Consciousness

psyche-d / March 15, 1995 According to the arguments for OR put forth in Penrose (1994), superposed states each have their own space-time geometries (see Shadows of the Mind, p. 338). When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state [avoiding the need for multiple universes as discussed by, for example, Everett (1957) and Wheeler (1957)]. In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum to classical reduction occurs. If as various philosophers claim (cf. Chalmers, 1994; 1996) the nature of conscious experience is somehow embedded in the nature of reality, self-selections in fundamental space-time geometry may address the "hard problem" of consciousness.

Unlike the random, "subjective reduction" (SR, or R) of standard quantum theory caused by observation or environmental entanglement, the OR we propose in microtubules is a self-collapse and it results in particular patterns of microtubule-tubulin conformational ("eigen-") states that regulate neuronal activities including synaptic functions. Possibilities and probabilities for post-reduction tubulin states are influenced by factors including attachments of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) acting as "nodes" which tune and "orchestrate" the quantum oscillations. We thus term the particular self-tuning OR process in microtubules "orchestrated objective reduction" ("Orch OR"), and calculate an estimate for the number of tubulins (and neurons) whose coherence for relevant time periods (e.g. 500 milliseconds) will elicit Orch OR. Stuart Hameroff"

The Platonist reality to me was a recognition of a informational reality where all information exists as energy, and that such integration with the physical body was a connection through the synapse as a reductionist ability to form through wave length function.

The point I wanted to make was that it is was as if there are two heads, that if it could be seen, one head moves through a whole wave length function potential as if walking through an ocean of wavelength like reality called information and such reduction of that information had to have a link between the material world in the brain/mind. I am trying to gather my thoughts here. Be clearer.

My thought of a glass of water was analogous here to what can exist in between a space , and have solid matter added to the glass without raising the water, somehow had me envision the gap in the water, as revealing the potential of that matter as filling a space that was not immediately obvious, but exists.

Matter then is not a solid.....but a potential realization of a condensation of that wave function. I am not altogether clear here.....so I am working on this.

 I think it is right to point out universal permeate of that energy as information. Think of the pattern of the quasi-crystal as consolidating wavelength like pattern. A pure state. How much closer are we then to recognize a wavelike pattern(chaldni) as an emergent product pattern of the idea?

I am having some difficulties here in solidifying a position here as to it being completely sound, so I am open to having philosophical interaction to help make this so.

***

 Knowing Penrose's attribute toward a Platonist ideal, the Goldberg idea may have come from how he saw what could be happening within the cosmic background as demonstration cyclical to the universe as always being born in certain locations(CCC). While now showing this theory to be false as defined as circles and located in WMAP, one gets a sense of his thinking of a Platonist.

The answer lies in the fact that the high entropy of the microwave background refers only to the matter content of the universe and not to the gravitation field, as would be encoded in its space-time geometry in accordance with Einstein’s general relativity. What we find, in the early universe, is an extraordinary uniformity, and this can be interpreted as the gravitational degrees of freedom that are potentially available to the universe being not excited at all. As time progresses, the entropy rises as the initially uniform distribution of matter begins to clump, as the gravitational degrees of freedom begin to be taken up. BEFORE THE BIG BANG: ;AN OUTRAGEOUS NEW PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS

Sir Roger Penrose was really fond of Escher .How might on see a relationship to Goldberg?

Penrose's Influence on Escher

During the later half of the 1950’s, Maurits Cornelius Escher received a letter from Lionel and Roger Penrose. This letter consisted of a report by the father and son team that focused on impossible figures. By this time, Escher had begun exploring impossible worlds. He had recently produced the lithograph Belvedere based on the “rib-cube,” an impossible cuboid named by Escher (Teuber 161). However, the letter by the Penroses, which would later appear in the British Journal of Psychology, enlightened Escher to two new impossible objects; the Penrose triangle and the Penrose stairs. With these figures, Escher went on to create further impossible worlds that break the laws of three-dimensional space, mystify one’s mind, and give a window to the artist heart.

***

How does one recognize "pure states?" There is a lot of science that is attached to this, and if one has not done their homework they might never understand exactly what this means. To relate self in this picture would somehow seem contradictory, but, as an idea regarding symmetry, one has to be able to speak about this possibility as well too.

While seemingly lost in history as to thinking its all Greek and not worth the time, there is more now to this realization having given some perspective about the Platonist that is current.

Well in today's world we might know what that might mean, not given time to further inspect what is being said. So we might call it this "other thing," a metaphysics. As a Platonist, I see the third realm as informational energy, so getting to that "as a pure state[a Form of the Good]," would in my view reveal something quite intrinsic about how we use that information. How we get to that information.

My question for you, recognizing that we are quite capable of getting to that informational energy, how do you resolve the quote given by Sir Roger Penrose given the Second law of thermodynamics with regards to entropy? You see the contradiction?



 See: Order and Chaos, by Escher (lithograph, 1950)

 You see Sir Roger Penrose had to be able say that such mini big bangs happen all the time.......and they do. Do you know where such pure states are given when considering this idea? Its happening in nature all around us right now. So if you assume this, how do we recognize it? While I hint here at (more then)one demonstration of a pure state, there is another.

***

See Also:

• Book Review: “String Theory and the Scientific Method” by Richard Dawid
• Far-reaching features of physical theories are not sociological questions

The Form of the Good

SOCRATES:  Tell me then, by Zeus, what is that excellent [págkalon, "all beautiful"] aim [érgon, "work, deed"] that the gods achieve, using us as their servants?
 
Plato, Euthyphro, 13e, translated by G.M.A. Grube [Hackett Publishing, 1981, p.19; Greek text, Plato -- Euthryphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1914-1956, pp.50-52]

In the Republic, Plato sets aside a direct definition of the "good itself" (autò t'agathón). Socrates says that instead we will get something in the nature of the "offspring" (ékgonos) or "interest" (tókos) on the good [Republic, 506 E]. For this "offspring," Plato offers an analogy:  The Good is to the intelligible world, the world of Being and the Forms, as the sun is to the visible world. As light makes vision possible in the material world, and so also opinion about such objects, the Form of the Good "gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and power of knowing to the knower..." [Loeb Classical Library, Plato VI Republic II, translated by Paul Shorey, Harvard University Press, 1935-1970, pp.94-95]. Furthermore, the objects of knowledge derive from the Form of the Good not only the power of being known, but their "very existence and essence" (tò eînaí te kaì hè ousía) [509B], although the Good itself "transcends essence" in "dignity and power" [ibid. pp.106-107]. The word here translated "essence" is ousía, which in Aristotelian terminology is the essence (essentia) of things, i.e. what they are. If Plato has something similar in mind, then the objects of knowledge derive from the good both their existence and their character. See: A Lecture on the Good,  by
Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

***

This below was a earlier attempt to define the idea of the Good and Form in context of the painting called Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"

                    Probabilties
                 (The Fifth Dimension)
                         |
                         |
                  Idea of the pipe
                        / \
                       /   \
                      /     \
                 Picture of the pipe
                    /         \
                   /           \
                  /             \
               The real pipe and form  
                                         

The fifth dimension was a attempt by myself to explaining the dimensional shift from the four dimension(space-time) to the fifth. Four leads into three was an ancient idea(Quadrivium ad Trivium) that came to mind that we may seek to explain as humanities attempt at perfecting. But at the same time such a descendent from the heaven into the mind of humanity, as the idea. A effective expression of the idea into form.

So such truths were important to me as to how we discover them. I am saying that this is a capable feature in all of us, and it was an attempt to explain how this is done. Deductive Logic while a representation of Aristotle, Aristotle pointed the way toward Plato. Aristotle pointed the way to Plato's explanation of the Good as it may have meant to Plato and what Aristotle may of disagreed with.

Plato's use of Socrates in the dialogues was specific to Plato's explaining what he meant by heaven. This is not a theological revelation for Christianity in my view as to the principles of Plato, as to what heaven meant. But something quite capable as to what heaven may mean as we grasp the understanding of the Good and inspection as to the Theory of Forms.

Indirectly, Aristotle then introduce the idea then of the universal and the particulars?

***

Distances” Determine Geometry
Describe an object with a table of distances between points.
Describe spacetime with a table of intervals between events
It is not my purpose in this discussion to represent the general theory of relativity as a system that is as simple and as logical as possible, and with the minimum number of axioms; but my main object here is to develop this theory in such a way that the reader will feel that the path we have entered upon is psychologically the natural one, and that the underlying assumptions will seem to have the highest possible degree of security.
—Albert Einstein

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf

***

"Symmetry breaking illustrated": – high energy levels (left) the ball settles in the center, and the result is symmetrical. At lower energy levels (right), the overall "rules" remain symmetrical, but the "Mexican hat" potential comes into effect: "local" symmetry inevitably becomes broken since eventually the ball must roll one way (at random) and not another.

If one recognizes such a state as to imply that Heaven exists in such perfection and beauty, then what causes the asymmetry to be broken? Moving into a dualistic notion of operation, would signify a symmetry breaking?

The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid's Elements for example). It quickly acquired a further, more general, meaning: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole. From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking -The Concept of Symmetry

Symmetry Breaking, means to measure.

***

One may need to recognize some aspect of consciousness and its capabilities, and thus, the parameters by which one thinks of how their consciousness operates, can become the limitations that that one applies to all(deluded). This then becomes "an application" to self.

An analogy to this situation might be what is thought to happen to the forces of nature in modern physics, where a single, original, unified force is separated into several forces by "spontaneous symmetry breaking." The form of consciousness as, according to Brentano and Husserl, the intentional relationship of subject and object, itself represents an asymmetry, breaking the symmetry of an existence where there is no distinction between subject and object. Existence as such is thus broken by the form of consciousness, and it becomes the forms of value, good and evil, right and wrong, the beautiful and the ugly, etc., as these vary independently over and against the simple factual existence of objects in the phenomenal world, or even against each other in the phenomenon of moral dilemmas (i.e. doing right results in evils, while doing wrong results in goods). A Lecture on the Good -http://www.friesian.com/good.htm

Bold added for emphasis by me.

The connection between superfluidity and symmetry breaking has had a glorious history. It has left us a rich legacy of fertile ideas, that seems far from exhaustion. PG 60 Superfluidity and Symmetry Breaking

You have to know what your doing when you apply those constraints to yourself. So maybe, there is this bigger picture.

Pierre Curie (1894): “Asymmetry is what creates a phenomenon.”

Before an Equation is Beautiful.....

 So we go after the essence of things in a logical way?

A question then that comes to mind is that if equations can become beautiful what were equations before? If taken in context of Aristotle, Objective deduction of information from induction, reveals the self evident principle?

The link to the following video will reveal this as a question about beauty, and without directing you to the answer, I want to see if you are quite capable of retrieving that answer.

Einstein was married to logic. But Einstein realized something, that helped him see "the before," as a necessary component in order to talk about "the nature of the equation?"

I am contending that when we think of Aristotle as we see science progress in the times, while further consider refinement in the Boolean perspective. But in essence,  one needs to be able to see in the Platonist way before one can move to the understanding of what beauty actually means.

....what was the equation?


Are you currently working towards a unified field theory?

***

So the beauty of the moment had to be clarified in certain terms, so as to be seen and understand that it could be seen.

Now beauty, as we said, shone bright among those visions, and in this world below we apprehend it through the clearest of our senses, clear and resplendent. For sight is the keenest of the physical senses, though wisdom is not seen by it -- how passionate would be our desire for it, if such a clear image of wisdom were granted as would come through sight -- and the same is true of the other beloved objects; but beauty alone has this privilege, to be most clearly seen and most lovely of them all. [Phaedrus, 250D, after R. Hackford, Plato's Phaedrus, Library of the Liberal Arts, 1952, p. 93, and the Loeb Classical Library, Euthryphro Apology Crito Phaedo Phaedrus, Harvard University Press, 1914-1966, p.485, boldface added]

Bold added for emphasis by me.


See Also:

• What Does It Mean For An Equation To Be Beautiful Or Elegant?

Death is Not Final

You all have to know the hammer analogy was made aware to me about a week before this debate took place. Also,  a YouTube label given to this demonstration was posted under "gaming" so I find that kind of funny given the seriousness of this debate.

I pushed Number 1.  But, you also know my bias right so I did not think providing this image would hurt in an way given that you already have some insight into my perspective? My opinion at Sean's Blog as well pertaining to this subject.

So as I am going through the debate I thought it necessary to keep a running tab for my self so as to see from what position one is speaking.  So now that I know Sean is speaking from a Naturalist point of view. I will continue.

A metaphysics that goes beyond the commitments of science is simply unsupported by the best available evidence.^[27]

—Lynne Rudder Baker, Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective

 A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.

— Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.

Okay I am at 36:58 of the video so I have had the opportunity to listen to the four speakers. I have to say oh my gosh, there is a lot here to consider, and a lot I have already considered. So I need to respond to that first part of the video.

As life calls us to do our things in the day to day, I also have a schedule today, so this posting will be broken up in terms of my response as to the first part of the video. Please be patient. It also gives me time to think about what has been said.

I want to open with the quote Sean responded too, of Eben Alexanders of Einstein. So give me time to drawn this comment out of Eben's book.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks  should be. -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

I am still ay 36:58 so I needed to finish what  what I have surmised in that first part so I can go on with the video. Below is something that I had written to my Aunt,  so hope she is okay with me repeating it here.  You will see that entry below. It basically sums up the first part of the debate for me.

As I was finishing listening to Steven Novella speak, the quote of Einstein, now gotten from Eben's book, Proof of Heaven under Prologue,  and response given by Sean Carroll was a matter of fact to the whole first part to me as it was for Sean to Eben's Alexanders use of the quote.

Something also interesting to me was Sean's admittance of wanting to believe (that death is not final) but at this point not being able too.That said a lot to me, and in the aspect of being a scientist,  I believe what he is saying.:) So I will continue on with the rest of the video now.

***

 In a note to my Aunt.

Hi Aunt Celine,

 I am a bit of a science buff when it comes to what is currently happening in science. I too had been reading about the NDE for quite a long time as well. Moody agrees with you, about science not quite ready. Since I have studied other aspects of consciousness research, it is my hope that one day we will understand this debate, as a recognition of who we all are as spiritual beings, in a physical body.

What Moody proposes is the beginning of a true dialogue based on logic and reason, and these stem from philosophy. So it is important to see the discussion in terms of where this dialogue can truly begin. Moody mentions pseudoscience and from that, his journey through philosophy. He is trying to set up a credible debate.

 I read Eben Alexander's book as well so I knew where he was coming from, as well I have been following Sean Carroll's science for sometime now. The only one that was sort of new to me was that Steve Novella, and as a neuroscientist, I am open to what he has to say. I must say then I am also a bit of philosopher that has had me venturing through aspect and developments about the Mind/ body debate that is going on, and that is where the science is saying that it is based on materialism. On my own, I have studied Plato and other philosophers.

 In order to accept materialism one has to believe, that consciousness is derived from the brain, while the other perspective is that the brain in my view, is what consciousness uses while the body is alive, but that consciousness can exist, once our body dies. That understanding is in contradiction to what science saids today, but I am saying to science, that they indeed do not have all the facts to make this conclusion even though they can simulate experience from manipulating the physical aspects of the body to produce the near death experience.

Religion has not helped me and I must say, that my upbringing within the Catholic Church has left much for me say, about its patriarchal construct, and how it falls short of providing support for what spiritual means to me. I hope you are not offended.

I do believe in a higher power, and I do believe that Heaven is capable in all of us now. In my education, I might of called it Symmetry, in the very beginning, and science has something to say about that. While I have a real study in reductionism, the work that has been going on, I believe eventually it will lead to an understanding within science, but it has to be developed, and in my view Moody's philosophical standpoint, is where we will start.

***

So I finished the rest of the video last night. There were somethings that were quite memorable to me that stood out.I wanted to quickly move to the end of the debate where each had an opportunity as they did in the beginning to give their last assessment as to why Death is Final, or not.

I was more focused on Sean's response and reiteration of respect for people and their beliefs. This was important to me. When Moody spoke of the work that he had been doing for the last forty years with regard to NDEs and the listening to people about these experiences, these were genuine stories of,  "Death was not Final"  for Moody. I was encouraged by the votes last night, not for which side supposedly won, but by the uncertainty(final 12%) as to the question of what remains as a definitive, as to Death is Final. These shows to me that people in the end still do not know, and that,  they could not be decisive. This to me,  leaves room for work to be done.

I also liked Sean Carroll's response too,  the responsibility of acceptance as to how one may look at life given the perspective of responsibility he has having accepted his position on Death is Final. Of course he might used,  when he was a child, as one might use as Moody did, as was his thrust to understand astronomy.

I believe this to be sincere, and such a question about death that would come to all in the child's mind, a determiner of what the future would bring for him as he sat on that panel. Not so much as a Skeptic full blooded, so as to be glib with the response of,  as if Steve Novella was the amazing Randi and waited for the bet that has not been collected. :) But to remain open, as the undecided results spoke toward, as if,  more information would be needed to make a final definitive statement.

So anyway, another moment stood out in regard to Sean Carroll's response to a woman about where the energy goes once we die. His analogy of a flame going out was like the hammer statement used above, as used in the repertoire of such a question about energy and death. What I liked about the response, was as to where it put the woman in mind. If you have ever come to the point of a logical constructive immobilizing one's position, as it was on the face this woman wore,  as to where the woman could go next. That final deductive state is an important one to me.

I have much more to say about reductionism and how that research is important to me as if the table would be permanent as the atom that make it up, would be a table ad infinitive. So as sure as, matter in all it's constitutions have been described, as to say I am pointing right a it?:) We are not objects like the table. The analogy of the narrative is always important as it is spoken, and as subjective and alone as it might seem there is the greater picture of the story of the NDEr.

I must say too, that the idea of reductionism as much as materialism, causes flinches in those who speak about spiritual things, would make one from that side speak about what is not reducible?  Since energy is an important topic and how we use configuration space to surmise  it's existence,  it becomes a classification of matter. I would assume there is much still to be ascertained.  I read the blogs of other scientists who are at the front with questions phenomenologically expressed that want to see where the science goes next. Just as we have been taken t the limits of where the identification of the Higg's operates and what that energy range is.

What is Beauty in a Abstract World?

 Pierre Curie (1894): “Asymmetry is what creates a phenomenon.”

This has been of some interest to me as this issue is explained.  I can see where such abstraction when not in some way connected to the real world would to one seem as if it is a dry unimaginative world,  just moving through qualitative functions. It has to mean something more, doesn't it?

Pauli understood that physics necessarily gives an incomplete view of nature, and he was looking for an extended scientific framework. However, the fact that the often colloquial and speculative style of his letters is in striking contrast to his careful and refined publications should advise us to act with caution. His accounts are extremely stimulating, but they should be considered as first groping attempts rather than definitive proposals. See: Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science

Held in context we trust that the philosophical basis is understood as it is being represented in today's world of science. This position with what is self evident must be correlated between theory and physics. So,  I wanted to point to something quite significant for the dry and death forborne mathematician who finds no correlates in the real world. Just goading.

Many prediction-making abilities are low-level and innate. We might say that trees \predict" the arrival of winter and decide to shed their leaves, for example. But in discussing the sense of beauty we are dealing with something that is uniquely human, or nearly See: Whence the Beauty of Mathematics?

It has not past my attention that Beauty is described as not being significant by some of these mathematicians who find no value to it. It means nothing? But for a minute,  think, that if supersymmetry is not established,  then does this in some way reduce the effectiveness of math to explain the symmetrical nature of reality? Should we try to describe these abstract things as being less then beautiful? What use then "any language" that is established,  from that math?

Professor Gates,  what would happen with the beauty of the Adinkra?

***

See Also:

• TVO S James Gates on Does Reality have a Genetic Basis
• Adinkra Symbols(physics)

Symmetry Breaking and the Crab Nebula

The connection between superfluidity and symmetry breaking has had a glorious history. It has left us a rich legacy of fertile ideas, that seems far from exhaustion. PG 60 Superfluidity and Symmetry Breaking

You know while there have been processes unfolding with regard to supersymmetry, for the life of it,  I am having a hard time ever denying to myself that the result of any beginning had to have some emergent feature that arose from the very nature of the big bang itself.

So to then, one may see some signs in a biological sense,  as to the nature of evolution? So,  that all things can be defined in this way. But the issue then for me is how "information can exist, " so as to say that such a direction for that evolution,  as an emergent product,  must have some location with which such presence makes itself know(far left of the picture above)? Sure,  because of my ignorance, I would be asking how such information could have ever come into being so as to say that this universe is the one with which such expressions came to be, so I accept the universe as it is.

Click on image above and you create a larger view of a microscopic world

So to then,  for such a gap to exist.  I was most certainly thinking about the LHC's use with which such reductionism were being taken.  I was looking for such signatures as to wonder that if such a location is found then(QGP),  so we could say indeed,  the beginning of the universe, and the correlation drawn,  as to the ever reducibility pursuit as some relation to nature?

The Crab Nebula, created by a supernova seen nearly a thousand years ago, is one of the sky's most famous "star wrecks." For decades, most astronomers have regarded it as the steadiest beacon at X-ray energies, but data from orbiting observatories show unexpected variations. Since 2008, it has faded by 7 percent, activity likely tied to the environment around its central neutron star. (Video Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)

Cosmologically it had to make sense too. So I  looked at events in the cosmos to help me understand what it is that was created in the moments we align ourselves too,as  in the LHC. While I looked at the picture(jet development and expression) above as to the timing with which such a environment, it is now reduced too, the Crab Nebula in its design. Would you deny the Crab Nebula had a previous showing with which the jets them self began to emerge?

An example then exists for me as to how such contributions that could arise in any nebula could have ever contributed to the way the universe is,  and if all such contributions taken to the same question,  helps to define the universe in ways that were preceded . Where that nature of the information is to reside.

So while we had found our limits with regard to Planck scale,  it is thought to me that such a symmetry had exist,  that all forms of that symmetry expresses itself as a forming dualistic nature,  for a symmetry breaking to exist,  and for such a division to take place from such a perfect place.

Abdus Salam Movie – The Dream of Symmetry

The movie presents the extraordinary figure of Abdus Salam of Pakistan, who not only was an outstanding scientist but also a generous humanitarian and a valuable person. His rich and busy life was an endless quest for symmetry, that he pursued in the universe of physical laws and in the world of human beings.See:Abdus Salam Movie – The Dream of Symmetry

See Also:

• Abdus Salam Movie – The Dream of Symmetry
• Exploring Matter At the Dawn of Time

A Visual Correlation to Symmetry Breaking

"Symmetry breaking illustrated": – At high energy levels (left) the ball settles in the center, and the result is symmetrical. At lower energy levels (right), the overall "rules" remain symmetrical, but the "Mexican hat" potential comes into effect: "local" symmetry inevitably becomes broken since eventually the ball must roll one way (at random) and not another.

The Standard Model hypothesizes a field which is responsible for this effect, called the Higgs field (symbol: ), which has the unusual property of a non-zero amplitude in its ground state; i.e., a non-zero vacuum expectation value. It can have this effect because of its unusual "Mexican hat" shaped potential whose lowest "point" is not at its "centre". Below a certain extremely high energy level the existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry which in turn gives rise to the Higgs mechanism and triggers the acquisition of mass by those particles interacting with the field. This effect occurs because scalar field components of the Higgs field are "absorbed" by the massive bosons as degrees of freedom, and couple to the fermions via Yukawa coupling, thereby producing the expected mass terms. In effect when symmetry breaks under these conditions, the Goldstone bosons that arise interact with the Higgs field (and with other particles capable of interacting with the Higgs field) instead of becoming new massless particles, the intractable problems of both underlying theories "neutralise" each other, and the residual outcome is that elementary particles acquire a consistent mass based on how strongly they interact with the Higgs field. It is the simplest known process capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories.^[79] Its quantum would be a scalar boson, known as the Higgs boson.^[80]

The potential for the Higgs field, plotted as function of and . It has a Mexican-hat or champagne-bottle profile at the ground.

CERN NEWS : LHCb announces new results in matter-antimatter asymmetry

Matter and antimatter are thought to have existed in equal amounts at the beginning of the universe, but today the universe appears to be composed essentially of matter. By studying subtle differences in the behaviour of particle and antiparticles, experiments at the LHC are seeking to cast light on this dominance of matter over antimatter. Now the LHCb experiment has observed a preference for matter over antimatter known as CP-violation in the decay of neutral B0s particles, read more: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates...

See Also:

• CP Violation and the Information/Anti-Information Asymmetry

Supersymmetry

Image: Event display of candidate event for this ultra-rare decay observed in the LHCb experiment

Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, near Geneva, have spotted one of the rarest particle decays ever seen in nature. The result is very damaging to new theories like the extremely popular Supersymmetry (or SUSY for short).

Current knowledge about the most fundamental matter particles (quarks and leptons, such as an electron) and the forces between them is embedded in the so-called Standard Model. The particle masses are a consequence of their interactions with the Higgs field. Exciting the Higgs field in particle collisions at the LHC recently resulted in the discovery of the Higgs boson.

However, the Standard Model is not the ultimate theory; it does not include gravity nor explain 95% of the Universe, which is in the form of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.  See:
SUPERSYMMETRY SQUEEZED AS  LHC SPOTS ULTRA RARE PARTICLE DECAY

Where is Our Starting Point?

	"The end he (the artist) strives for is something else than a perfectly executed print. His aim is to depict dreams, ideas, or problems in such a way that other people can observe and consider them." - M.C. Escher

• The Nobel Prize in Physics 1914 Max von Laue

• Quasicrystal: Prof. Dan Shechtman

Can you trace the patterns in nature toward matter manifestations?

	To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images. -Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

The idea here is about how one's observation and model perceptions arises from some ordered perspective. Some use a starting point as an assumption of position. Do recognize "the starting point" in the previous examples?

 Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"

The effective realization that particle constructs are somehow smaller windows of a much larger perspective fails to take in account this idea that I am expressing as a foundational approach to that starting point.

If you do not go all the way toward defining of that "point of equilibrium" how are you to understand how information is easily transferred to the individual from a much larger reality of existence? One would assume information is all around us? That there are multitudes of pathways that allow us to arrive at some some probability density configuration as some measure of an Pascalian ideal.

Of course there are problems with this in terms of our defining a heat death in individuals?

That's not possible so one is missing the understanding here about equilibrium. I might have said we are positional in terms of the past and the future with regard to memory and the anticipated future? How is that heat death correlated? It can't.

So you have to look for examples in relation to how one may arrive at that beginning point. Your theory may not be sufficiently dealing with the information as it is expressed in terms of your approach to the small window?

There are mathematical inspections here that have yet to be associated with more then discrete functions of reality as expressive building blocks of interpretation. The basic assumption of discrete function still exists in contrast to continuity of expression. This is the defining realization in assuming the model that MBT provides. I have meet the same logic in the differences of scientific approach toward the definition of what is becoming?

On the one hand, a configuration space as demonstrated by Tom that is vastly used in science. On the other, a recognition of how thick in measure viscosity is realized and what the physics is in this association. Not just the physical manifestation of, but of what happens when equilibrium is reached. Hot or very cold. Temperature, is not a problem then?

See my problem is that I can show you levitation of objects using superconductors but I cannot produce this in real life without that science. Yet, in face of that science I know that something can happen irregardless of what all the science said, so I am looking as well to combining the meta with the physical to realize that such a conditions may arise in how we as a total culture have accepted the parameters of our thinking.

So by dealing with those parameters I too hoped to see a cultural shift(paradigm and Kuhn) by adoption of the realization as we are with regard to the way in which we function in this reality. So if your thinking abut gravity how is this possible within the "frame work" to have it encroach upon our very own psychological makeup too?

Higg's Boson: Analogies Help

John Ellis,theoretical physicist, answers the question "What is the Higgs boson?" in preparation for the press conference following the seminar on LHC 2012 results on the Higgs boson search, due on July 4 2012 at CERN. For more details: http://cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR16.12E.html

See Also: What is the Higgs boson? John Ellis, theoretical physicist

webcast of seminar with ATLAS and CMS latest results from ICHEP

You know analogies are important in that they can bring a lay person some clarity in helping to understand what s going on in the world of science. As a blogger I have attach myself to some scientists who have been more then willing to share this aspect of them-self with the world. I do not know of a more honorable thing a scientist can do but by taking this time to help the public.

A Superset Universe?

How would you draw a Universe with all theories as being part of,  as a subset?

Pictorial representations can be very useful in presenting information or assisting reasoning. Venn diagram is an example. Venn diagrams are used to represent classes of objects, and they can also assist us in reasoning about the relations between these classes. They are named after the English mathematician John Venn (1834 - 1923), who was a fellow at Cambridge University.

A few may have taken in the link supplied to a lecture given by Thomas Campbell with regard to his MBT book he had written. Now, I was drawn to the idea of a Venn diagram presented in his lecture and the idea of how one might have use this diagram as a question about the universe and it's subsets? How would you draw it?

I give a current posting by Sean Carroll with regards to his opinion on a book written by Lawrence Krauss. So there all these theories about the nature of the universe and some scientists of course have their opinions.

............Or not, of course. We should be good empiricists and be open to the possibility that what we think of as the universe really does exist within some larger context. But then we could presumably re-define that as the universe, and be stuck with the same questions. As long as you admit that there is more than one conceivable way for the universe to be (and I don’t see how one could not), there will always be some end of the line for explanations. I could be wrong about that, but an insistence that “the universe must explain itself” or some such thing seems like a completely unsupportable a priori assumption. (Not that anyone in this particular brouhaha seems to be taking such a stance.) SEE:A Universe from Nothing?

Physicists have proposed several theories to explain why Λ is so small. One of the most popular -- the "anthropic principle" -- states that Λ is randomly set and has very different values in different parts of the universe (figure 1). We happen to live in a rare region, or "bubble", where Λ has the value we observe. This value has allowed stars, planets and therefore life to develop. However, this theory is also unsatisfactory for many scientists because it would be better to be able to calculate Λ from first principles.

See also:

• Plinko Sounds a Bit like the Galton Board

• Justified true belief

• Memories Arise Out of a Equilibrium

Relativism

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1914 Max von Laue

I am not sure what I can add other then what I have already been saying toward logical deduction....I still need to get a handle on the essence of what is being said here in opening thread.

So with what I looked at, can we say that the deductive recognition of lets say symmetry would be in contrast to how you might look at the world in a relativistic sense versus Platonism.

See: Against Symmetry

This setting was used more I think in terms of how a scientist is explaining himself and his relationship with the way in which he had approached science.....yet I could see there were scientist who had adopted the Platonic Tradition. Example of Penrose and Coxeter were demonstrative of this idea?

5.4.3 Platonism and Relativism

Platonism is a family of views that get their name because they involve entities--propositions, properties, sets--which, like Plato's Forms, are held to be abstract, immutable things that exist outside space and time. On many platonistic approaches, concepts express abstract properties and beliefs are relations between people and abstract propositions. This suggests a way around some types of relativism, since people in quite different cultures could have many of the same beliefs (because they could believe the same abstract propositions), and a belief would be true just in case the immutable proposition it expresses is true.

The relativist may reply that platonistic accounts lead to severe difficulties in epistemology and semantics. The problem is that we are physical organisms living in a spatio-temporal world, and we cannot interact causally (or in any other discernible way) with abstract, causally inert things. Moreover, few people are aware of having any special cognitive faculty that puts them in touch with a timeless realm of abstract objects, neuroscientists have never found any part of the brain that subserves such an ability, such a view is not suggested by what is known about the ways children acquire concepts and beliefs, and nothing in physics suggests any way in which a physical system (the brain) can make any sort of contact with causally inert, non-physical objects. Moreover, if our minds cannot make epistemic contact with such things, it is difficult to see how our words and linguistic practices can make semantic contact with them.

None of this proves that abstract propositions don't exist, but it shows it isn't obvious that they do. There have been few debates between relativists and platonists over such matters, however, perhaps because the two views lie so far apart that their proponents cannot easily engage one another.

So these were two positions that were adopted within the push toward understanding the basis of science and it's mathematics.

In theory model development was pushed forward on the basis of such adoptions. Loop Quantum Gravity?

Quasicrystal: Prof. Dan Shechtman

***

Just throwing some stuff together in order to understand the extent of relativism as a universal truth, while seeking to understand the subjective realism that make up our individuality. As a layman I do not know if it will be useful under that admittance. You can judge for yourself of course.

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."- Lisa Randall

If one was to solidify some basis to truth how would this be done? The question of a logic oriented view for me saw a basis in what Penrose was explaining using his Twistors, as a foundation in incorporating Fuzzy logic?

While examining the psychological model of Venn logic and TA combined, it was important that there be some relative framework for such a subjective interpretation of a logic orientated world. How subjectively could this have been managed?


Perspective of the Theoretical Scientist

So you have this history and theoretical perspective that sees the world in one way or another? How do you reduce it to a process through Computing that establishes a basis in machining the effects of [and\or-so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false.]? We've created a space in between a true and false statement?

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, molecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing See:DNA computing

Entanglement then provides for other understanding then of a framework that sees the interrogation of a subjective world?

Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial intelligence such as Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model perception and used in newly designed "smart" cameras. Where standard logic must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to support our theories? Ideas on Quantum Interrogation

***

Geometry Leads us to the Truth?

Part of the realism here for me is the idea that such patterns established deep within our psyche are inherent in each of us as an image first to our awareness, but encompasses a geometric patten of sorts. This was part of the work I did on myself as I explored the realm of dreams. The idea then manifested in what was the basis of this thought process as mandala in origins. A historical vision of an ancient idea of model building. In today's world I thought this as appropriate toward how theoretical ideas are built around a whole history of science and information.

History of Supersymmetry to Today

Special Topic of Supersymmetry

by Science Watch

Since the 1980s, if not earlier, supersymmetry has reigned as the best available candidate for physics beyond the standard model. But experimental searches for supersymmetric particles have so far come up empty, only reconfirming the standard model again and again. This leaves supersymmetry a theory of infinite promise and ever more questionable reality. See Link above.

Also: What's Inside ScienceWatch.com This Month - ScienceWatch.com - Thomson Reuters

 Update-

See Also :

• Nima Arkani-Hamed on Maximally Supersymmetric Theories    

• An interview with Arkani-Hamed on SUSY

The Truth of Symmetry?

Fidel wrote:

Canadian Tom Harpur wrote that modern day religious scholars began to realize that indigenous people in this hemisphere possessed what are some of the most sophisticated and deeply held spiritual beliefs in the world.

I agree with your perspective about the historical perspective with the introduction of the white people assertions toward the beliefs of their spirituality  and that expressed by the indigenous people of that time. The "new culture"  to squashed that belief.

Over all I see in a  sense what you are saying that what could have befell the indigenous peoples is what could have fell upon the generations that exist now upon the planet by some alien society as an act of evolution and change with those same correlative situations as it did in our past. Many fictions written in this context today.

But again these are the finer mental states of existence of belief structures, polarization and centralization of such beliefs are "matter states" in the conquest of how we may perceive that evolution.

Quote:

LEE SMOLIN- Physicist, Perimeter Institute; Author, The Trouble With Physics

Thinking In Time Versus Thinking Outside Of Time

One very old and pervasive habit of thought is to imagine that the true answer to whatever question we are wondering about lies out there in some eternal domain of "timeless truths." The aim of re-search is then to "discover" the answer or solution in that already existing timeless domain. For example, physicists often speak as if the final theory of everything already exists in a vast timeless Platonic space of mathematical objects. This is thinking outside of time. See:A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world.

 Lee Smolin does not obviously like the abstractions in the mathematical realm, and prefers to set the pace for scientific realism by denouncing the historical past with regard to foundational approaches by Plato Thales and others who were our forefathers of expression. Like Hawking,  he is seeking to set foot in the realism of today?
So I am struggling with what we can define as "outside time" is no more then the belief of, while in science we are asking to deal with a methodology that is repeatable by expression, so how can we say spirituality is of a kind of substance or can exist amongst all substances and does not exist outside of time?
In dealing with the opinion of Hawking and Smolin I raise the question of Meno,

Quote:

SOCRATES: But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.SEE:Meno by Plato

 

It relates to the question of how the house boy knew what he knew.

Quote:

MENO: And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.

SOCRATES: And yet he has the knowledge?

MENO: The fact, Socrates, is undeniable.

SOCRATES: But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he must have had and learned it at some other time?

MENO: Clearly he must.

Quote:

Spectrum wrote: Macdougall's mistake was to believe that spirituality could actually weigh something?

Fidel wrote:

I have no idea except to say that some scientists have said that certain phenomenon may not be detectable by our five senses as developed throughout our evolution. Astronomer Lord Rees suggests that we may need to evolve physically and otherwise a lot further in order to fully understand the universe. And I can see that. If we have evolved in a corner of the universe where atomic matter rules, then of course scientists are going to know a lot about physical matter, which is about 4% of everything that there is.

You actually quoted from a post that dissappeared when providing the links for the cultural Books of the Dead. MacDougall reference and materialism. My point was to supply the Macdougall reference to show how spirituality from my perspective is much lighter and really can't be measured in the way you captured the quoted statement I have suggested.

It goes back to the panel I provided about the weighing of the heart against the feather as truth. To me, it is about Gravity and how we are looking at it. Conceptually modelling according to the questions of a theoretical unification of all the forces. Where gravity actually begins and is inclusive. I really have to be careful here of my statements so as to maintain a mainstream correlative thinking that is current and correct. There is so much to remember.

Fidel wrote:

Apparently some pyramidologists believe that if they substitute years for inches, the great pyramid becomes a prophetic calendar of human events culminating in a forked path to our future. A similar dual future is predicted by prophecies according to Hopis of the Americas. Time is a river that flows and branches into forks and even whirlpools according to Einstein.

That's interesting as it related to my own research on that topic. Developing the concept about our "metal imagery" according to some scale was implemented in the construction of the geometry of the pyramid. I tried scaling the substance of thought as a elementary consideration of where and what we grab onto in life so as to show that the harboring of thought in such a domain, reveals how close indeed we court the matter distinctions of the world we live in.

Newton the Alchemist

Newton's Translation of the Emerald Tablet

Quote:

It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father; the Moon its mother; the Wind hath carried it in its belly; the Earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.

Metal should read Mental, but using the analogy of what Gold men/woman are is as much a part of the allure of chymistry as a novel idea of bettering ourselves is an inclusive thought as well.

Quote:

The Errors & Animadversions of Honest Isaac Newton
by Sheldon Lee Glashow


ABSTRACT:
Isaac Newton was my childhood hero. Along with Albert Einstein, he one of the greatest scientists ever, but Newton was no saint. He used his position to defame his competitors and rarely credited his colleagues.His arguments were sometimes false and contrived, his data were often fudged, and he exaggerated the accuracy of his calculations. Furthermore, his many religious works (mostly unpublished) were nonsensical or mystical, revealing him to be a creationist at heart. My talk offers a sampling of Newton’s many transgressions, social, scientific and religious.

Many did not like this part of Isaac Newton's research but to me even with all the failures of Newtons "mental state" he was trying to better himself, and that is what the Books of the Dead represented to me about trying to understand matter creation in the sense of what we gather together to become who we are. That is a consistent feature of living beings that what gathers around our human feature, gathers around all things? Matter gathers around "a spiritual principal" from inside each of us.

Quote:

The standard model of particle physics is a self-contained picture of fundamental particles and their interactions. Physicists, on a journey from solid matter to quarks and gluons, via atoms and nuclear matter, may have reached the foundation level of fields and particles. But have we reached bedrock, or is there something deeper? Savas Dimopoulos

The Sun then becomes a interesting feature of what "rays of creation" may mean as it gives life to all that falls under it's light that such a light could have existed inside of us as well. That we came from such a place as to exemplify that we are being first of the true signs of spirituality and then become all that falls under these rays of creation.

A refractory status of light itself and Thomas Young's question about spectrum of light and being.
Objects like the pyramid were shadow markers and were part of the history and development of concepts of geometers and angles of Euclid in my views. This is a materialistic explanation while the pyramid itself is a model for understanding the matter creation and sub developmental model of such scaling of human thought. This represented in my views as an attempt to help people of the times to understanding the truth and comparison of what values we hold to heart and our own evolution of being.

Newton Prism Experiment

The pyramidal model of refractions is a display of the light representation of the spectrum of possibilities, as a relational experimental model in my mind of something quite ancient in it's notion,  is applicable in the views of the science today. Something that is forgotten, but as a attempt of all our remembrances whether we like to admit it or not, is a universal understanding of our depth of being and our loss of memory as we are immersed in materiality.

To me this is a aspect of understanding how ideas emerge as if from a world Smolin liked to assign toward "outside of time" and a diversion of the quest to understand aspects of materiality as "not in time." That is my disagreement of him and his thoughts as it relates toward. The "idea of symmetry" and how this is assigned as a relational aspect of the idea of "outside of time." We are of such perfection that such a beauty is simplified in our own existence as spiritual beings that we each contain this within ourselves? This possibility of becoming in the world of materiality.