Re: [Sadhu Sanga] what do you believe consciousness is or does?

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 5, 2017 wrote:

>Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or 

>byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a 

>process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct 

>of brain activity."

.

[S.P.] Three remarks here. First, if it is a "question", then where is a question mark? Second, if there is an "an", then there must be "epiphenomenon" -- a singular, but not "epiphenomena" -- a plural. Third, if by "" (inverted commas) we mean a citation, then whose thoughts are being cited here? Sorry for my remarks, but the absence of formal rationality in somebody's thinking has the same effect upon me as a donkey's urine has upon car's engine if it is used instead of petrol. :-)

.

OK. Let us consider the role of beliefs. Suppose, in Zoo, there is a new still unknown animal. One zoo worker believes that the animal is herbivorous. The other zoo worker believes that the animal is carnivorous. Shell we take an interest in their beliefs? I think that we should take an interest rather in the applied problems. Namely, we should wait what results will be after applying own beliefs in practice. So, we should take an interest in which of the workers will stay alive after entering the cage with this animal in trying to feed it.

.

So, one person may choose to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical processes in the brain. The second person may choose to believe that consciousness possesses Supreme, Prime, Divine, or Cosmic fundamentality. The third person (like me) may choose to believe that consciousness (as a special case of the activity of informational factor) has equal fundamentality with other factors such as a material factor and energetic factor. The fourth person (like Alfredo Pereira Jr.) may choose to believe that we have to consider the physiological aspect, the mental unconscious aspect, and the mental conscious aspect as equally fundamental. And so on. 

.

No problem with all this -- everybody has the right to believe in what he chooses to believe. But, of our interest should be not somebody's beliefs. In fact, we should take an interest in applied problems. Namely, we should take an interest in what explanatory and predictive power the applied theory of consciousness may have in case of being constructed within the limits of such or other belief system.

.

With kindest regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 10:05 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] what do you believe consciousness is or does?

All,

Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity."

I begin by noting that the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali gives a very comprehensive idea of the various techniques which are involved with the practice of Yoga

but it is very deficient in giving us a clear and inspiring idea with regard to the real object of practicing and the nature of Reality which they are meant to 

realize when the object aimed at has been achieved.

joe 

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Serge,

It seems to me that your following statement is about one of the three categories of consciousnesses -- namely, the model or theory of consciousness (see the third node in Figure 1 below), which presupposes two other consciousnesses (see the first two nodes). 

"So, one person may choose to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical processes in the brain. The second person may choose to believe that consciousness possesses Supreme, Prime, Divine, or Cosmic fundamentality. The third person (like me) may choose to believe that consciousness (as a special case of the activity of informational factor) has equal fundamentality with other factors such as a material factor and energetic factor. . . . "

                                                    f                                                            g

    Consciousness as Firstness ----->  Consciousness as Secondness ----->  Consciousness as Thirdness
  (Cosmological Consciousness)               (Lived Consciousness)                   (Theorized Consciousness)

                        |                                                                                                                      ^
                        |                                                                                                                      |

                        |                                                                                                                      |

                        |___________________________________________________________|
                                                                                  h

Figure 1.  A Hypothesis: Consciousness is irreducibly triadic consistent with the triadic metaphysics of C. S. Peirce (1839-1914).

                f = natural process; g = mental process; h = grounding, information flow.

All the best.

Sung

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:26 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 5, 2017 wrote:

>Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or 

>byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a 

>process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct 

>of brain activity."

.

[S.P.] Three remarks here. First, if it is a "question", then where is a question mark? Second, if there is an "an", then there must be "epiphenomenon" -- a singular, but not "epiphenomena" -- a plural. Third, if by "" (inverted commas) we mean a citation, then whose thoughts are being cited here? Sorry for my remarks, but the absence of formal rationality in somebody's thinking has the same effect upon me as a donkey's urine has upon car's engine if it is used instead of petrol. :-)

.

OK. Let us consider the role of beliefs. Suppose, in Zoo, there is a new still unknown animal. One zoo worker believes that the animal is herbivorous. The other zoo worker believes that the animal is carnivorous. Shell we take an interest in their beliefs? I think that we should take an interest rather in the applied problems. Namely, we should wait what results will be after applying own beliefs in practice. So, we should take an interest in which of the workers will stay alive after entering the cage with this animal in trying to feed it.

.

So, one person may choose to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical processes in the brain. The second person may choose to believe that consciousness possesses Supreme, Prime, Divine, or Cosmic fundamentality. The third person (like me) may choose to believe that consciousness (as a special case of the activity of informational factor) has equal fundamentality with other factors such as a material factor and energetic factor. The fourth person (like Alfredo Pereira Jr.) may choose to believe that we have to consider the physiological aspect, the mental unconscious aspect, and the mental conscious aspect as equally fundamental. And so on. 

.

No problem with all this -- everybody has the right to believe in what he chooses to believe. But, of our interest should be not somebody's beliefs. In fact, we should take an interest in applied problems. Namely, we should take an interest in what explanatory and predictive power the applied theory of consciousness may have in case of being constructed within the limits of such or other belief system.

.

With kindest regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>

To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 10:05 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] what do you believe consciousness is or does?

All,

Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity."

I begin by noting that the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali gives a very comprehensive idea of the various techniques which are involved with the practice of Yoga

but it is very deficient in giving us a clear and inspiring idea with regard to the real object of practicing and the nature of Reality which they are meant to 

realize when the object aimed at has been achieved.

joe 

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1122280903.6478790.1499307972744%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

[Uziel Awret]

As the pre-Socrateans used to say: "The first to appear is the last to be revealed."

uzi.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Serge,

It seems to me that your following statement is about one of the three categories of consciousnesses -- namely, the model or theory of consciousness (see the third node in Figure 1 below), which presupposes two other consciousnesses (see the first two nodes). 

"So, one person may choose to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical processes in the brain. The second person may choose to believe that consciousness possesses Supreme, Prime, Divine, or Cosmic fundamentality. The third person (like me) may choose to believe that consciousness (as a special case of the activity of informational factor) has equal fundamentality with other factors such as a material factor and energetic factor. . . . "

                                                    f                                                            g

    Consciousness as Firstness ----->  Consciousness as Secondness ----->  Consciousness as Thirdness
  (Cosmological Consciousness)               (Lived Consciousness)                   (Theorized Consciousness)

                        |                                                                                                                      ^
                        |                                                                                                                      |

                        |                                                                                                                      |

                        |___________________________________________________________|
                                                                                  h

Figure 1.  A Hypothesis: Consciousness is irreducibly triadic consistent with the triadic metaphysics of C. S. Peirce (1839-1914).

                f = natural process; g = mental process; h = grounding, information flow.

All the best.

Sung

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2B9VsvOfsytV%3DsUpHtRML0g%3DeBChVoWNEzjQLUNPqow%3Duksx%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 6, 2017 wrote:

>Is matter independent of consciousness.

.

[S.P.] As I have explained in my post (see below), every person is free to believe in what he chooses to believe. One person may choose to believe that "matter is independent of consciousness", the other person may choose to believe that "matter is not independent of consciousness".

.

My beliefs are more complex. First, I consider three factors -- informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor -- on which the existence of some complex system depends. Second, these three factors are considered (are believed, or postulated) to be equally fundamental. The "equal fundamentality" means that they are not dependent on each other. That is why, for me, the so called "mind-matter problem" is formulated incorrectly.

.

Therefore, according to my beliefs, the correct question (or questions) should be as follows: Is the overall entropic state of some complex system (like a living organism) dependent on the change of informational factor? Is the entropic state of this same complex system dependent on the change of material factor? Is the entropic state of this same complex system dependent on the change of energetic factor?

.

In trying to answer the first question we may come to the applied theory of consciousness. And it is what we are in search for. Stating own beliefs is itself not a goal.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>

To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:54 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Is matter independent of consciousness.

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

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:26 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 5, 2017 wrote:

>Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or 

>byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a 

>process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct 

>of brain activity."

.

[S.P.] <skip>

.

OK. Let us consider the role of beliefs. Suppose, in Zoo, there is a new still unknown animal. One zoo worker believes that the animal is herbivorous. The other zoo worker believes that the animal is carnivorous. Shell we take an interest in their beliefs? I think that we should take an interest rather in the applied problems. Namely, we should wait what results will be after applying own beliefs in practice. So, we should take an interest in which of the workers will stay alive after entering the cage with this animal in trying to feed it.

.

So, one person may choose to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical processes in the brain. The second person may choose to believe that consciousness possesses Supreme, Prime, Divine, or Cosmic fundamentality. The third person (like me) may choose to believe that consciousness (as a special case of the activity of informational factor) has equal fundamentality with other factors such as a material factor and energetic factor. The fourth person (like Alfredo Pereira Jr.) may choose to believe that we have to consider the physiological aspect, the mental unconscious aspect, and the mental conscious aspect as equally fundamental. And so on. 

.

No problem with all this -- everybody has the right to believe in what he chooses to believe. But, of our interest should be not somebody's beliefs. In fact, we should take an interest in applied problems. Namely, we should take an interest in what explanatory and predictive power the applied theory of consciousness may have in case of being constructed within the limits of such or other belief system.

.

With kindest regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Jul 2017, at 22:18, Joseph McCard wrote:

Is matter independent of consciousness.

I think that in the Vedanta of Sankara, like in the theology of numbers, or like in the work of Plotinus, matter is a creation of the soul (Atman). The body is a biological or arithmetical illusion. In the theology of Numbers, the physical laws should be derived from the logic of machine or number (self)-observability. So in such theories, matter depends on consciousness. The propositional logic of the observable have been partially derived, and up to now fits well with the facts and with the reports of 1p experience (local particular consciousness). I can explain more, but at some point, this explanation relies on results in mathematical logic which are not well known by non-logicians.

This explanation here is coherent with the non-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. It generalize Drawin, somehow, as the laws of physics evolve in some logical space, but its interest relies mainly in the fact that it does not eliminate the first person view, nor the quale et consciousness, unlike some purely materialist approach (Churchland, Dennett, etc.).

Bruno Marchal

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/37a32938-86bc-4946-a525-b898b2f5a915%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Srikanth R.]

Dear Joe,

As regards the purpose of yoga, as studied in Patanjali's yoga sutras, it is to attain the pure subjective "I" abstracted from any predicative modifications of the consciousness, or chitta vritti-s. 

At any moment, we conceptualize ourselves as, e.g., "I am a human called X" or "I ponder mysteries" etc. In each of these sentences, the subject "I" remains the same, whereas the predicative qualifications vary. In first person (1p) experience, these qualifications correspond to modifications that create forms (vritti) in the chitta (memory-mind). The purpose of yoga is to silence and refine one's consciousness to the point that the movement of the mind towards conceptual or sensory objects can be brought to rest, so that the pure subject "I" shines forth.

योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः ॥२॥
yoga: chitta vrtti nirodhah ||2||

Yoga is restraining the memory-mind-stuff (chitta) from assuming various forms (vrittis).

Cheers,

Srik

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity."

I begin by noting that the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali gives a very comprehensive idea of the various techniques which are involved with the practice of Yoga

but it is very deficient in giving us a clear and inspiring idea with regard to the real object of practicing and the nature of Reality which they are meant to 

realize when the object aimed at has been achieved.

joe 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/16b30b7e-097a-4db8-add7-78fb6db3190c%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Dr. R. Srikanth

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Theoretical Sciences

Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research

Bangalore- 560 080, Karnataka, India.

http://ppisr.res.in/srikanth-r.html

Mob: +91 9844593440

[Asingh2384]

Matter, mind, and consciousness represent a continuum in a living universe. Please refer to the following links:

The Unlikely Fate of Two Universes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-unlikely-fate-of-two-universes_us_5947dcdee4b024b7e0df4de0

The Last Paradox: Does the Universe Have A Mind? 
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59511dbee4b0f078efd98365

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/561307DB-1C7E-48D3-98C9-518732753BA4%40ulb.ac.be.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Serge,

In the following questions you raise, 

(1) what do you mean by "the entropic state of complex system"?
(2) What is your view on the the relation between entropy and information ?
(3) What is your view on the relation between entropy and energy?
(4) What is your veiwe on the relaiton between entropy and matter?

"Is the overall entropic state of some complex system (like a living organism) dependent on the change of informational factor? Is the entropic state of this same complex system dependent on the change of material factor? Is the entropic state of this same complex system dependent on the change of energetic factor?"

Thanks in iadvance.

Sung

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:46 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 6, 2017 wrote:

>Is matter independent of consciousness.

.

[S.P.] As I have explained in my post (see below), every person is free to believe in what he chooses to believe. One person may choose to believe that "matter is independent of consciousness", the other person may choose to believe that "matter is not independent of consciousness".

.

My beliefs are more complex. First, I consider three factors -- informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor -- on which the existence of some complex system depends. Second, these three factors are considered (are believed, or postulated) to be equally fundamental. The "equal fundamentality" means that they are not dependent on each other. That is why, for me, the so called "mind-matter problem" is formulated incorrectly.

.

Therefore, according to my beliefs, the correct question (or questions) should be as follows: Is the overall entropic state of some complex system (like a living organism) dependent on the change of informational factor? Is the entropic state of this same complex system dependent on the change of material factor? Is the entropic state of this same complex system dependent on the change of energetic factor?

.

In trying to answer the first question we may come to the applied theory of consciousness. And it is what we are in search for. Stating own beliefs is itself not a goal.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>

To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:54 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Is matter independent of consciousness.

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

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:26 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 5, 2017 wrote:

>Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or 

>byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a 

>process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct 

>of brain activity."

.

[S.P.] <skip>

.

OK. Let us consider the role of beliefs. Suppose, in Zoo, there is a new still unknown animal. One zoo worker believes that the animal is herbivorous. The other zoo worker believes that the animal is carnivorous. Shell we take an interest in their beliefs? I think that we should take an interest rather in the applied problems. Namely, we should wait what results will be after applying own beliefs in practice. So, we should take an interest in which of the workers will stay alive after entering the cage with this animal in trying to feed it.

.

So, one person may choose to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical processes in the brain. The second person may choose to believe that consciousness possesses Supreme, Prime, Divine, or Cosmic fundamentality. The third person (like me) may choose to believe that consciousness (as a special case of the activity of informational factor) has equal fundamentality with other factors such as a material factor and energetic factor. The fourth person (like Alfredo Pereira Jr.) may choose to believe that we have to consider the physiological aspect, the mental unconscious aspect, and the mental conscious aspect as equally fundamental. And so on. 

.

No problem with all this -- everybody has the right to believe in what he chooses to believe. But, of our interest should be not somebody's beliefs. In fact, we should take an interest in applied problems. Namely, we should take an interest in what explanatory and predictive power the applied theory of consciousness may have in case of being constructed within the limits of such or other belief system.

.

With kindest regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1038312347.328047.1499395571077%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Avtar,

Do you have a top-down mathematical model in which quantum fields and particles come out from consciousness?

Best Regards.

Kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d1daef92d-22b1-1a5cf%40webprd-a94.mail.aol.com.

[Kalluri Rao]

It is a state in which the native can communicate with other .

KSR

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity."

I begin by noting that the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali gives a very comprehensive idea of the various techniques which are involved with the practice of Yoga

but it is very deficient in giving us a clear and inspiring idea with regard to the real object of practicing and the nature of Reality which they are meant to 

realize when the object aimed at has been achieved.

joe 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/16b30b7e-097a-4db8-add7-78fb6db3190c%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Knowledge & Information can be communicated, but not wisdom.  

Kalluri Subba Rao, PhD.,D.Sc (IISc), FNA.

 

[Dhirendra Sharma]

Scientific language is Mathematical - Secular and Universal.

Similarly - Mother and Humanity  are Secular and universal narratives.

There is no distinct Hindu/ Aryan/ Indian/ blood group that divides us ...

The epics have recorded  the social/ civic and communal Jihadi violence

in Sat-yug when in Mahabharat Lord Krishna commanded Arjuna:

"it is dharma-yudha, if you win you will enjoy KIngdom, if you die fighting the

dharma-yudha, you would go to Heaven ( svarga-lokam gamishyasi).)

That is the same as to say: if you kill a  Kafir  you would go to Heaven.

We are in cyber  Space Age - gender, caste, race, region and religion -

are irrelevant identities exploration of the Cosmic galaxies....

 Dhirendra Sharma 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAC%2Bafkoh1ix%3D2oUgG%2B%2B%3D4ME8UwhgGArxBSy%3Db10pHQ0VyNr0hA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Insaan-ko, Insaan-se ho Bhai-chaara, Yehi hai Paigaam Hamara!

Dhirendra Sharma

Centre for Science Policy/Concerned
Scientists & Philosophers,
"Nirmal-Nilay", Dehradun 248009 (India).
+(0135) 2736027.Mob. 989788 3741
http://psaindia.infotechlogic.com/

[Alex Hankey]

Joe, the analysis of regulatory control in the physiology that 

has recently been developed, suggests that the locus of 

control of all organisms is capable of supporting 

subjective experience. Consciousness. 

Other results that i am now working on show that 

the correct conditions hold at Hawking's 'God Point' 

for that to be true there as well. 

All best wishes, 

Alex 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/16b30b7e-097a-4db8-add7-78fb6db3190c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India 
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy

[Jennifer Nielsen]

Eh I'm being a hack metaphysician here, but:

• Consciousness is equivalent to a state of "meaning"
• Meaning is encoded in morse code sent via signals which are limited by the light speed barrier.
• Meaning cannot be transferred via signals. It can only be encoded on either side by conscious beings that contain the state.
• Meaning resembles quangled "states" moreso than bits/signals. Meaning is not the same thing as information. 

---

From: Kalluri Rao <ksrb...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] what do you believe consciousness is or does?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAC%2Bafkoh1ix%3D2oUgG%2B%2B%3D4ME8UwhgGArxBSy%3Db10pHQ0VyNr0hA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jennifer Nielsen]

There are definitely orders and predictabilities or we would not be able to have this conversation. Grammar and rational aspects of consciousness rely on and require
 structure and predictability, which the brain would be incapable of generating without predictable arrangements in space.

Quote:
QM, QI, QT involve theoretical organized mathematical structures that impose your own ideas of order and predictability, when there actually is none."

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>

To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 6:36 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

"Dear Avtar, Do you have a top-down mathematical model in which quantum fields and particles come out from consciousness?

Best Regards. Kashyap"

There are many gradations of matter, or form, that you do not perceive, and all are composed wholly of consciousness, or (the inclusive "or")  individually as consciousness units. Leibniz called these "monads". Plato called it "the fire that does not burn". Many of these particles move faster than the speed of light, because they have no mass. Your dreams are composed of such particles, and you will notice that your dreams do not obey the rules of physics, as they are currently understood. 

Light represents only a portion of a larger spectrum than that of which you know. Why don't you know that? Currently, Dark matter and Dark energy are popular. But then you really have no idea what energy is, do you. When science studies lights properties, they can only investigate it as it intrudes on our 3-D system. Such particles would not be perceived as mass. When theses particles do slow down, they form the electromagnetic energy units

that compose quantum fields and particles. Both Plato and Leibniz knew something about this, why don't you.

QM, QI, QT involve theoretical organized mathematical structures that impose your own ideas of order and predictability, when there actually is none. You examine probable atoms, yet the position of an atom can only be theorized. No one knows where any given atom is at any given time. Sure, QT is useful, but so is knowing what happens to flour, water, yeast, and salt, when you follow a certain pattern of rules. But t5he fundamental details are vague.

If you want a mathematical model, you need to expand your mathematical constructs and the logic they are built with. For example, the number line is linear and 2 dimensional. There are possible number lines that run in parallel with it. 

Traditional mathematical logic is built up, for example, based on conceptions of a linear temporal measurable physical reality, and is confounded by unresolved paradoxes based on, for example, the ambiguity of words and symbols.

Consciousness units "slow down" to become electromagnetic energy units, with intent. The energy of consciousness units becomes concentrated, forming mass, matter. Matter is a concentrated form of energy. This is how your mind forms the reality you experience, your reality is your thoughts become manifested.

All this knowledge is available to you, by simply focusing the attention of your ego inwardly, instead of outwardly on the material world. Consider following your impulses, or at least acknowledge them,  and not following some pre-determined scientific/philosophical logic or mathematical formula.  But, do what you gotta do man : )

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5d287761-79ab-4f60-8194-38bd14bbc6fc%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jul 2017, at 17:33, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Matter, mind, and consciousness represent a continuum in a living universe. Please refer to the following links:

The Unlikely Fate of Two Universes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-unlikely-fate-of-two-universes_us_5947dcdee4b024b7e0df4de0

The Last Paradox: Does the Universe Have A Mind? 
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59511dbee4b0f078efd98365

This assumes that there is an ontological physical reality. It is still what I called weak-materialism.

I have shown that the hypothesis of Digital Mechanism in the cognitive science implies the negation of weak-materialism (to be short). You might take a look to my simple exposition here:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

This does not mean that Chopra is false in your reference, but it means that Matter, Mind and Consciousness is not just a continuum, but that it is mathematically well structured continuum, and that eventually, the branch of physics is reduced to the psychology, or better, the theology of the numbers (a branch of both computer science and elementary arithmetic).

An image would be that consciousness and mind is a continuum, indeed, but it is a sort of volume, and the physical reality or realities constitute the border of that volume. We need to assume only the natural number, and we have to retrieve the physical laws from the simple laws of addition and multiplication (which are already Turing complete, and contains the emulation of all possible "dreams"). I have derived a quantum logic at the place where Plotinus, and the universal machine!, already told us to look at to find the roots of the physical reality. The quanta appears to be special sharable qualia, and the physical is a first person plural sharable part of the qualia mathematics.

Best regards,

Bruno Marchal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d1daef92d-22b1-1a5cf%40webprd-a94.mail.aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Kashyap,

On 07 Jul 2017, at 21:17, Vasavada, Kashyap V wrote:

Dear Avtar,

Do you have a top-down mathematical model in which quantum fields and particles come out from consciousness?

That was indeed lacking in the paper mentioned, which actually *assumes* a physical universe, and suggests a physicalist account of consciousness. That is logically possible if we assume consciousness requires actually infinite machines. If we assume on the contrary that we are finite machine, then indeed all the laws of physics *must* be derived from consciousness, itself derived from the theory of the self-referential numbers (which is part of elementary arithmetic as we know since Gödel arithmetize metamathematics).

You can take a look at my paper here for a top down derivation of quantum logic from self-reference, preceded by an argument in 8 steps showing why we *have to* proceed in that way if we want to get both the qualia and the quanta.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Best regards,

Bruno

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/9a885a49d5e8402f8d24c9d372593fc7%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Joe,

I will reply to both comments, one addressed to me earlier and another addressed to Vinodji.

 

The reason to ask Avatarji a straight question was that if you can incorporate both matter and consciousness in the same theory that would be indeed revolutionary. It will answer the question people have been asking for thousands of years and would be worth a Nobel Prize if nothing else.

I am waiting for Avatarji’s reply. Leibniz and Plato were great in their time. But science has made considerable advance since that time. I have to admit that progress in understanding consciousness by science has been practically zero!

I will answer some of the points you raised strictly from physics point of view. For additional viewpoints please see my correspondence with Vinodji on this website. I have not made up my mind about various theories of consciousness. So I will not say anything about those.

First, there is no dispute in physics about matter and energy. There is no boundary between mass and energy, they are same! It is strictly governed by E=mc^2 (as a matter of fact, in a common system of units used by theoretical physicists, c is taken as 1!!).

 

“Such particles would not be perceived as mass. When these particles do slow down, they form the electromagnetic energy units that compose quantum fields and particles.”

 

This is completely wrong from physics point of view. Both particles with speed zero and non zero are described by quantum fields. No problem! There is no contradiction between QM and special theory of relativity. The problem arises in general theory. But that is a long story.

 

 

The reason you see energy more often than mass is this strict equivalence and the m in the above equation changes with speed. But every fundamental particle has a unique m (0) called rest mass that you would measure if you are in a reference frame moving with the particle. If you look at the particle data table, you will find these values. You cannot be in a reference frame of light, since according to theory of relativity, c is the absolute upper limit that any object with non-zero mass can have and it is not permissible for a non-zero rest mass particle to travel at velocity c. Accordingly photons have zero value of m (0) for consistency.

The correct equation is

 

E=m (0) c^2/Sqrt (1- v^2/c^2), v is the speed of the particle.

 

You will see that if m (0) is not zero, v cannot be c. If v=c, m (0) is zero. In calculus, 0/0 can have a finite value.

No one has observed particles with velocity greater than light. These are called tachyons or ghosts sometime! When theories develop these, theorists try to remove them mathematically!

QT is not just useful! There must be certain amount of truth in that. The cell phone in your pocket is a glowing tribute to this.

 

“If we assume on the contrary that we are finite machine, then indeed all the laws of physics *must* be derived from consciousness,”

 

Yes. I would love to see this.

 

Dalai Lama is highly intelligent spiritual leader interested in science. He talks to scientists routinely. He invites physics professors to his place Dharamsala to teach physics to monks (I knew one of them). In fact he said once that if science disproves some of the concepts of Buddhism, he will change his views about them.

So while it is great to talk about a unified theory of consciousness and matter, we are not anywhere close to that. But my mind is open about any development in this area and I will read without prejudice about any theories on this subject.

Thanks for your comments.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph McCard
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2017 9:38 AM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

 

Vinod,

 

Thank-you for your thoughtful comments 😀

 

I would like to respond to the following, as it involves boundaries, boundaries between physical science and non-physical reality,  the boundary between matter and energy, as well as boundaries between what we accept as true and what we find fault with.

 

"Light particles ( photons) have also no mass but they move at the speed of light ( not more than the speed of light)."

 

Boundaries are where funny things happen, questions are raised, ambiguity sits in. Computer programs are tested at the boundaries of its algorithmic variables, what the mathematician Imre Lakatos called, "Lunatic Fringes". 

 

As I understand it, the term "mass" is no longer used in science literature (I don't know why). It is certainly possible that there are forms of energy that move faster than light, and we cannot perceive them. If an object moves slower than light, isn't it considered to be matter? (I don't know that for sure, either).

 

So I am wondering why light can be detected, but we can't see light itself. I also note there is a book by Arthur Zajonc, "Cathching The Light", in which he says we do not know what light is. 

 

"Zajonc held a number of dialogues with the Dalai Lama in 1997 which were published in 2004 under his scientific coordination and editorship as Dalai Lama: The New Physics and Cosmology. He was moderator for the 2003 dialogue with the Dalai Lama at MIT."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zajonc

 

His writings seem closely connected to some of the issues and interests of this forum:

 

Zajonc, Arthur, ed. (2004). Dalai Lama: The New Physics and Cosmology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195159943. Edited by Zajonc, this book is based on a series of conversations with the Dalai Lama and several prominent physicists about quantum mechanics.

Harrington, Anne; Zajonc, Arthur, eds. (2008). The Dalai Lama at MIT. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674027336.

Zajonc, Arthur (2008). Meditation As Contemplative Inquiry: When Knowing Becomes Love. Lindisframe Press. ISBN 978-1584200628.

 

"Arthur Guy Zajonc is a physicist and the author of several books related to science, mind, and spirit; one of these is based on dialogues about quantum mechanics with the Dalai Lama. Zajonc, professor emeritus at Amherst College as of 2012, has been teaching there since 1978. He has served as the General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America. From January 2012 to June 2015 he was president of the Mind and Life Institute.

 

Zajonc became an assistant professor of physics at Amherst College in 1978, and was promoted to associate professor in 1984 and full professor in 1991. In 2006 he became an Andrew W. Mellon Professor at Amherst. He retired from this position in 2011, and is now Andrew W. Mellon Professor Emeritus at Amherst College.

 

I have, and have read his first6 book, "Catching the Light", but now I feel motivated to look at his interaction with the Dali Lama. 

 

joe

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BDviUGVbkNMZLL8zpVY-RsA3vNQ%2BwgggmKbVAOfVEMaBVX_EA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Norm Silliman]

Joseph,

        Things have changed over the years.

"Light particles ( photons) have also no mass but they move at the speed of light ( not more than the speed of light)."

        A 150 years ago when light was defined as a wave in the Aether, it made sense.  The speed of light waves
were dependent on the speed of the Aether particles.

        Now "Light"  is defined as a particle, and nothing makes sense.  If there is no Aether, then what causes
light to travel at "any" speed?  Of course, the electrons may be hitting the photons with the right amount
of energy to fling them at us so we can 'see' the light.  [But that means the molecule must build the photon
particle just in time for the electron to bat it to us.]

            "So I am wondering why light can be detected, but we can't see light itself. "

        Of course we can "see" light (itself). Just pick up a flashlight, and shine it on your face.  Or, you
are referring to the new definition of vision, where the rods in the eye "detect" the light photon and
the brain tells us that there is a light source ahead.
 
            Things have changed over the years.
           
            Norm

On 7/8/2017 8:38 AM, Joseph McCard wrote:

Vinod,

Thank-you for your thoughtful comments 😀

I would like to respond to the following, as it involves boundaries, boundaries between physical science and non-physical reality,  the boundary between matter and energy, as well as boundaries between what we accept as true and what we find fault with.

"Light particles ( photons) have also no mass but they move at the speed of light ( not more than the speed of light)."

Boundaries are where funny things happen, questions are raised, ambiguity sits in. Computer programs are tested at the boundaries of its algorithmic variables, what the mathematician Imre Lakatos called, "Lunatic Fringes". 

As I understand it, the term "mass" is no longer used in science literature (I don't know why). It is certainly possible that there are forms of energy that move faster than light, and we cannot perceive them. If an object moves slower than light, isn't it considered to be matter? (I don't know that for sure, either).

So I am wondering why light can be detected, but we can't see light itself. I also note there is a book by Arthur Zajonc, "Cathching The Light", in which he says we do not know what light is. 

"Zajonc held a number of dialogues with the Dalai Lama in 1997 which were published in 2004 under his scientific coordination and editorship as Dalai Lama: The New Physics and Cosmology. He was moderator for the 2003 dialogue with the Dalai Lama at MIT."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zajonc

His writings seem closely connected to some of the issues and interests of this forum:

Zajonc, Arthur, ed. (2004). Dalai Lama: The New Physics and Cosmology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195159943. Edited by Zajonc, this book is based on a series of conversations with the Dalai Lama and several prominent physicists about quantum mechanics.

Harrington, Anne; Zajonc, Arthur, eds. (2008). The Dalai Lama at MIT. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674027336.

Zajonc, Arthur (2008). Meditation As Contemplative Inquiry: When Knowing Becomes Love. Lindisframe Press. ISBN 978-1584200628.

"Arthur Guy Zajonc is a physicist and the author of several books related to science, mind, and spirit; one of these is based on dialogues about quantum mechanics with the Dalai Lama. Zajonc, professor emeritus at Amherst College as of 2012, has been teaching there since 1978. He has served as the General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America. From January 2012 to June 2015 he was president of the Mind and Life Institute.

Zajonc became an assistant professor of physics at Amherst College in 1978, and was promoted to associate professor in 1984 and full professor in 1991. In 2006 he became an Andrew W. Mellon Professor at Amherst. He retired from this position in 2011, and is now Andrew W. Mellon Professor Emeritus at Amherst College.

I have, and have read his first6 book, "Catching the Light", but now I feel motivated to look at his interaction with the Dali Lama. 

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BDviUGVbkNMZLL8zpVY-RsA3vNQ%2BwgggmKbVAOfVEMaBVX_EA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jennifer Nielsen]

Serge -- I don't think we disagree on encodables

---

From: "'Jennifer Nielsen' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2017 3:15 AM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1855077183.1062638.1499481868852%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Joe, Kashyap:

What are quanta, if not indivisible units of energy? What was the context of Feynman's quote?

Atoms are matter in its most tangible form. E=mc^2 tells us that this matter is transmutible into enormous amounts of kinetic energy. This is realized to some degree in nuclear weapons, which produce energy that can accelerate mass according to the equations F = ma and thus produce kinetic energy in its more traditional form, E = mv^2. These are bits of high school  physics which remain valid throughout more advanced discussions.

"speed zero" has to take place within a specific frame of reference, and that frame can be at a high speed relative to other frames. When I am "motionless" it is with respect to the solid surface of the earth, but that is rotating, and orbiting the sun, which in turn is orbiting the galaxy center, etc. 

At absolute zero, molecular motion stops but there is still the "motion" of electrons around atomic nuclei, a motion that we cannot fully understand since the electron is not something that has a specific location and specific momentum at any given time.

Since we are far from a unified field theory in physics, how can anyone claim to be close to a unified theory of consciousness and matter? Just saying that "gravity is the effect of gravitrons while electrical attraction is the effect of photons and nuclear binding is the effect of mesons" is not a unified field theory.

Are we really any closer to a unified theory of matter and consciousness that is less simplistic than the text I put in quotes just now? Joe's slogan at the end is something I can't grok, and I doubt that he can grok it in a way that survives under critical cross-examination.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Joseph McCard [joseph....@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 6:29 PM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Kashyap,

Concisely, I hope  : )

Have you had paranormal experiences?

"I will answer some of the points you raised strictly from physics point of view."

What about from the open minded perspective you suggest at the end?

"Kashyap: First, there is no dispute in physics about matter and energy. There is no boundary between mass and energy, they are same!"

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way.

volume I; lecture 4, "Conservation of Energy"; section 4-1, "What is energy?"; p. 4-2" (Feynman) 

What do you make of that Feynman quote? 

"Kashyap: It is strictly governed by E=mc^2 "

What do you think the equation is saying? What do you think it is saying, in light of the Feynman quote?

If there is no boundary, how do you distinguish matter from energy?

“Joe: Such particles would not be perceived as mass. When these particles do slow down, they form the electromagnetic energy units that compose quantum fields and particles.”

"Kashyap: This is completely wrong from physics point of view. Both particles with speed zero and non zero are described by quantum fields. No problem! 

So, you are suggesting (speed zero) that there are things that do not move ( I think)? One of the basic properties of consciousness, as I understand it, is that consciousness never stops. 

Since all matter (where matter is concentrated energy), and energy, are composed of consciousness, no matter or energy ever stops moving. I have read that at the temp of absolute zero, things still move.

"In fact he (Dalai Lama) said once that if science disproves some of the concepts of Buddhism, he will change his views about them."

My understanding is that Eastern metaphysical principles state the truth about the nature of reality, one of the reasons I joined this group. 

I suspect he knows the views of Buddhism are not likely to be disproved by current scientific practices. That makes him wise indeed : )

"Kashyap: So while it is great to talk about a unified theory of consciousness and matter, we are not anywhere close to that.

You are not close. I understand. ("We" can be understood in many ways)

"Kashyap: But my mind is open about any development in this area and I will read without prejudice about any theories on this subject."

I observe, but I don't judge you (please understand the difference) that your claim for open-mindedness is impossible. Your mind is the product of your upbringing, your parents, teachers, and friends, experiences...

So, for example, talk about "theories", about "reading",  is a certain kind of talk, implying certain closely held beliefs, beliefs that are so near to you that you cannot separate your own identity from them.

I think that is true for you, true for me, true for all cognizing. I suspect it is no coincidence you chose to write earlier, "I will answer some of the points you raised strictly from physics point of view."

 

Consciousness is aware-ized energy, and all energy is aware-ized. Consciousness is the by-product of a dynamic imbalance between action, acting within and upon itself, and the identity that re-action creates. 

Can you set aside your physics Mind, use your open Mind, and grok that? 

Sincerely and respectfully appreciative, joe

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/0011bc0d-3858-4fd6-80e3-232e5a3ac0c9%40googlegroups.com.

[Joseph McCard]

Peter,

You asked:

"What are quanta, if not indivisible units of energy?

Let's look at, "Leibniz" (R. Arthur), ch 4, Mathematical Philosophy, p.79-80, just to confirm that I am not making ALL of this up as I go along : )

"One of Leibniz's most distinctive doctrines is his advocacy of the actual infinite...the great majority of mathematicians  and philosophers had sided with Aristotle, who denied an infinity of things could exist  [see, for example, A's infinite regress argument]. Aristotle had formulated his views largely in response to the famous paradoxes of Zeno [something I would like to see Bruno Marchal do]...Parmenides, that all that exists is One, changeless and indivisible (his arg is detailed by Arthur here)  [Vinod's last comment to me invoked similar ideas] ...Aristotle responded by insisting that the parts of a continuous thing are nothing but potential  parts: they are the parts into which it could be divided....This brings us to Leibniz's work on infinite series and the calculus" (Arthur)

Leibniz's monad was an out growth of this line of thought, not an actual part, but a possible part. Jonathan Edwards, a contributor to this list, is better qualified to talk about this, but what Arthur wrote covers the gist of the idea. However, I could provide some of the gruesome details if you had further questions.

We must unfortunately deal with analogies, because they can form bridgeworks between concepts. For the sake of discussion, there are units of consciousness, then, as there are units of matter. I do not want you to think of these units as particles. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness is obviously not physical

"Peter: What was the context of Feynman's quote?"

>http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html<

"Atoms are matter in its most tangible form." 

So, you see, you are using "atoms" for the sake of a discussion, when no such unit actually exists. But yes, if we discuss physical reality, "atoms" are a good way to do it, as I see you are doing. 

"E=mc^2 tells us that this matter is transmutible into enormous amounts of kinetic energy."

Yes, I also believe that the equation expresses something true, that matter is simply a concentrated form of energy. Although that's how I understand the equation, and this perspective is consistent with my approach, I have done the research, and there is general disagreement as to how to interpret the equation. I note that the equation says nothing about how that spontaneous transformation takes place. I have stated my understanding, consciousness units, intentionally slow down, to become electromagnetic energy units, which then can form patterns of concentrated energy

"Peter: This is realized to some degree in nuclear weapons, which produce energy that can accelerate mass according to the equations F = ma and thus produce kinetic energy in its more traditional form, E = mv^2.

Energy creates mass doesn't it? If, as you are saying, energy accelerates mass, the mass must already exist. So, in this case, energy does not seem to actually produce mass, if I understand what you are saying. 

'Peter: "speed zero" has to take place within a specific frame of reference, and that frame can be at a high speed relative to other frames. When I am "motionless" it is with respect to the solid surface of the earth, but that is rotating, and orbiting the sun, which in turn is orbiting the galaxy center, etc.'

Yes, Such highly specific reference frames, as Descartes 3-d graph, a theoretical organized structure, which imposed his ideas of order and predictability, are artificial constructs use for the sake of discussing the nature of reality, just as "monad", "atom", and "consciousness unit" are. And so, each concept reaches further down the deep well of understanding the nature of reality. But, the words are not the real things. Only your thoughts, feelings, and experiences are real. But, we use words and symbols, and frameworks, as ineffective as they are in communication, they are what is available.

"Peter: At absolute zero, molecular motion stops but there is still the "motion" of electrons around atomic nuclei, a motion that we cannot fully understand since the electron is not something that has a specific location and specific momentum at any given time."

Units of consciousness move faster than the speed of light, then - but that statement itself is meaningless in a way, since the units exist outside as well as inside the framework in which light itself has meaning. 

As these units approach physical structure, they do slow down, in our terms. Electrons you speak of, are slow dullards in comparison to electromagnetic energy units. It goes without saying thatv the units of consciousness are "mental", or if you prefer, disembodies, though from their inner organization all physical forms emerge. 

"Peter: Since we are far from a unified field theory in physics,"

You are far from a UFT. 

"Peter: how can anyone claim to be close to a unified theory of consciousness and matter? 

Matter is a concentrated form of energy, and all energy is conscious. 

"Peter: Just saying that "gravity is the effect of gravitrons while electrical attraction is the effect of photons and nuclear binding is the effect of mesons" is not a unified field theory.

But saying all those bits are different forms of consciousness units, unifies them. Consciousness can best be described as a field. 

"Peter: Are we really any closer to a unified theory of matter and consciousness that is less simplistic than the text I put in quotes just now?

How's this: Consciousness is aware-ized energy, and all energy is aware-ized? 

"Peter: Joe's slogan at the end is something I can't grok, and I doubt that he can grok it in a way that survives under critical cross-examination.

Well, like the Dalai Lama has been quoted as saying in a recent thread here, if you can disprove my unification "theory", I will thank you for doing so, and adopt whatever conception of the nature of a unified theory would be. 

I think what I have written is consistent with Eastern metaphysical principles, and I add that Leibniz has had a connection to that tradition.)

joe

[Jasleen Bal]

Dear sir 

With all due respect. Why are we slaves of our logic. Why we need to disect everything to understand it. If yoga is a technique that worked for our forefathers, than why not forget logic and have a leap of faith in it. Afterall, this is what it demands. If the leap of faith is a key of this technique than why not try it. No matter how deep you go at least, you must have an idea of the things. Consciousness is a state beyond five senses, a little dive can give us some glimpse of it. 

But, unlike science where things once discovered  are available  for all humanity. The yoga or the union is to be achieved  by individual. One can only try to speak some words about unexplainable dimension but these words are like scriptures with different  meaning for different  people. Pardon me if I confused you. 

Yours 

On 6 Jul 2017 12:06 a.m., "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Is consciousness an epiphenomena, "a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process, in particular....a mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity."

I begin by noting that the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali gives a very comprehensive idea of the various techniques which are involved with the practice of Yoga

but it is very deficient in giving us a clear and inspiring idea with regard to the real object of practicing and the nature of Reality which they are meant to 

realize when the object aimed at has been achieved.

joe 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/16b30b7e-097a-4db8-add7-78fb6db3190c%40googlegroups.com.

[Siegfried Bleher]

Dear Joe,

 

I would say, rather, that Patanjali gives many descriptions of the nature of Reality that obtains from long, uninterrupted and correct practice, foremost among these, the definition itself in sutra I.41 of the state of coincidence (samapatti) of observer (grahitr), object (grahya) and the process of observing (grahana) that results from stilling of the fluctuations of the mind.  Various properties of consciousness (i.e. citta) revealed by the assiduous practice of samyama (integration of concentration, meditation and absorption) are described in the third Pada.  The fourth Pada gives detailed descriptions of the relationship between the individual consciousness and universal consciousness, as well as the nature of subjective time and its role in producing the illusion of a separate self.  At the end of the day, though, these are ‘sutras’, or ‘threads’ which are meant to be realized through practice, not necessarily understood through discourse.

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph McCard

Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/10b9d28f-0a78-4e2c-b11a-4f0cd8335b24%40googlegroups.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on July 9, 2017 wrote:

> What are quanta, if not indivisible units of energy?

.

[S.P.] "Quantum" is not an "indivisible unit of energy". As I have mentioned in my reply on June 19 (see attached below), the idea of "quantum" pertains not to the physical features of energy, but to ability of a complex system as a whole (like an atom) to absorb/release energy. Energy changes always continuously, but, it is the complex system that is able to absorb/release energy in portions. In the attached post I explain why this takes place.

.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

[Asingh2384]

Dear Joe:

 

 

Joe: “Given that the following is correct, why would you choose a reality that is in conflict with so many others. Why are you confident, and the whole QM, QI, QT talk is just jibber-jabber.?

 

Avtar: My Universal Relativity Model (URM) is not in conflict but eliminates the inconsistencies, paradoxes, and singularities of the QM, General Relativity, and standard big bang model creating conflicting, unverifiable, and often ridiculous (parallel universes, super-luminous inflation, ) pictures of realities as evidenced by their failure to predict 96% of the universe (dark matter, dark energy, and antimatter etc).

 

The ridicule of unverifiable parallel universes (the most popular interpretation of QM and standard model) demeans science to its core and its quest to find the ONE UNIVERSAL Theory of Everything representing ONE UNIVERSE and ONE set of laws. The whole sanity and sanctity of science becomes questionable under the current mainstream interpretations of universal reality paralyzed by unresolvable internal inconsistencies and nowhere close to explaining the ultimate fundamental reality and consciousness at the universal scale.

 

The “Jibber-jabber” is nothing but an artifact of being lost in the wild-geese chase of presumably dead particles mindlessly floating around the universe that is mis-predicted to be born out of nothing (defying the universal laws of conservation) ending in an ultimate certain death. The picture further represents a “Dicey” reality fraught with uncertainty, cosmic disorder, and probabilistic but (miraculously or religiously) fine-tuned universe.

 

URM provides a viable approach to end this pathetic and unfortunate state of the mainstream science/theories on a universal scale that are shown to be almost perfect at the worldly scale, especially in their astounding success in predicting experiments performed in the classical world with classical measurements and their successful earthly technological applications.

 

URM thus attempts to restore power and beauty of science to explain the entire wholesome reality from matter, mind, to consciousness and from physical to non-physical (spiritual) domain as a wholesome continuum.  

 

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 3:12 pm
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Avtar,

Given that the following is correct, why would you choose a reality that is in conflict with so many others. Why are you confident, and the whole QM, QI, QT talk is just jibber-jabber. 

I do mention, I have, and have read, the book, "You Are The Universe". Jane Roberts was saying a lot of the same things starting in 1970, but of course, there is a long history going back as far as we can see. But, no one says it as clearly as her : )

"Dr. Singh’s unique answer to all the paradoxes of physics and consciousness is what he calls the Universal Relativity Model (URM). Deepak became fascinated because his recent book, You Are the Universe, co-authored with physicist Menas Kafatos, posited exactly what URM delivers: a single reality that doesn’t need two universes, one for science and one for everyday life. Singh’s breakthrough was to take Einstein’s E=mc2, which applied relativity to matter, energy, space, and time in a very general way, and go a step further, applying it to everything in the universe, including human consciousness.

At first blush this seems all but infeasible, because, as we saw, a green leaf looks, feels, and appears in every way different from the formulas of biology, chemistry, and physics. But the distance between any subjective experiences—the heat of a summer day, the sound of rain on the roof, the scent of a rose—has been impossible to bridge to the world of objective data, measurements, and experiments? How many meters wide is love? What does a laugh weigh? To construct this bridge is actually possible only if we wake up to the fact that Nature is doing it already without playing any dice.

And that’s what is happening. Nature is so precisely organized that it coordinates every dimension and force from zero to infinity as part of the implicate cosmic order. Take a snapshot of a single moment in time, such as the moment the first primitive life form like blue-green algae or a single-celled amoeba appeared. This was more than a moment (the dimension of time). There also had to be the exact portion of space (planet Earth), mass (all the chemicals involved in living forms), and energy (the proper temperature range for living things). The coordination of these factors was in fact unique for this moment. Pick another moment—when the first dinosaur appears, a specific supernova exploded, or your first birthday—and the “recipe” of time, space, matter, and energy was just as unique. The universe entails life and nature as one wholesome continuum of conscious experiences or awareness.

Since all of these factors are flexible and expandable, they are in a relativistic relationship with one another. This is all logical and easy to grasp, although the necessary math is complex. What emerges is universal relativity, an infinite continuum of unique “recipes” for anything you can name in the cosmos. Along this infinite continuum, every option is open to human awareness. There can be time close to zero or expanded to eons, space smaller than the infant universe when it was billions of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence or expanded to billions of lightyears, and so on.

If everything exists on the same continuum of universal relativity, there are no more paradoxes, contradictions theoretical bumps, and discontinuities. This model does something that even the standard Theory of Everything would not be able to do even if it was finally formulated. It includes the second universe of conscious experience. Two totally opposed conceptions of reality - the objective scientific worldview and the inner world of the mind, are bridged while remaining within the demand for data, measurements, and hard evidence."

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/86e467a2-e466-46f0-849b-6b3406f17177%40googlegroups.com.

[Jasleen Bal]

Dear Siegfried

I think there is a huge confusion here. You prayed to some God and believed in a belief system called religion, that has nothing  to do with my view. When I say leap of faith, then it doesn't mean fancy prayer "o help me lord" type. The prayers help but only by psycologicall stabilizing  people for sometime. But my faith is to believe in meditation/spirituality and to become a true seeker in order to attain consciousness and to be awaken beyond five senses.

When Einstein deduced E=mc2, his work was labelled rather artistic not scientific by authorities of different universities. Theory of relativity has completely shattered our belief in what we call as universal constants. This is why I call human beings, the slaves of logic. 

The very idea of success and illustratory stories of it, seems stupid to me because I know death is the ultimate goal of the form of life that we know with our senses. The life beyond senses is the real life that is throbbing throughout  the universe. 

To conclude, I see scientific seeking and spiritual seeking as two different dimensions. When I humbly suggest you to have a leap of faith in our consioussness through meditation then i ask you to simply see, if cat is alive (shrodinger's cat). Well it worked for me. 

Regards 

Kanwaljeet singh

On 10 Jul 2017 3:08 a.m., "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

>jasleenbal2 writes: With all due respect. Why are we slaves of our logic. Why we need to disect everything to understand it. If yoga is a technique that worked for our forefathers, than why not forget logic and have a leap of faith in it. Afterall, this is what it demands. If the leap of faith is a key of this technique than why not try it. No matter how deep you go at least, you must have an idea of the things. Consciousness is a state beyond five senses, a little dive can give us some glimpse of it.  But, unlike science where things once discovered  are available  for all humanity. The yoga or the union is to be achieved  by individual. One can only try to speak some words about unexplainable dimension but these words are like scriptures with different  meaning for different  people. Pardon me if I confused you. 

>Sigfried writes: I would say, rather, that Patanjali gives many descriptions of the nature of Reality that obtains from long, uninterrupted and correct practice, foremost among these, the definition itself in sutra I.41 of the state of coincidence (samapatti) of observer (grahitr), object (grahya) and the process of observing (grahana) that results from stilling of the fluctuations of the mind.  Various properties of consciousness (i.e. citta) revealed by the assiduous practice of samyama (integration of concentration, meditation and absorption) are described in the third Pada.  The fourth Pada gives detailed descriptions of the relationship between the individual consciousness and universal consciousness, as well as the nature of subjective time and its role in producing the illusion of a separate self.  At the end of the day, though, these are ‘sutras’, or ‘threads’ which are meant to be realized through practice, not necessarily understood through discourse.

Thanks you, and I understand. Meditation was never my thing. Sometimes a guy just wants to know what a thing is, has to know. Although I understand you believe YOU are a slave to your logic, we free ourselves from that slavery when we come to understand the nature of consciousness, the nature of personal reality, the nature of the intellect, as I have. I used to have faith in the Catholic church, and I prayed, "Help me God.", and no help came. I continued to be poor, unhealthy, a failure, making bad decisions.  I had faith in western medical doctors, but I never became healthy, never attained my goals, I was a talented athlete, very smart, but I had no love in my life. I tried meditation, that was in 1972. I traveled many roads, literally. 

In the end, I found my own path. I created my own success story. But, you do what YOU gottta do : )

What is YOUR goal, to loose your identity in some divine essence, loosing your own self forever? That's not for me. I am a co-creator, not a follower or a leader. 

 

 

Siegfried

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/8fbeb3d1-fdad-4b1d-8bb4-21dbc7b49d65%40googlegroups.com.

[Asingh2384]

Dear Kashyap and All:

 

My Universal Relativity model (URM) is all inclusive – bottom up and top down. From bottom up it provides field equations for spontaneous mass-energy conversion among particles/classical masses and from top/down it conserves the total mass-energy of the universe. The solution describes universe as a continuum of mass-energy states from V=0 (R=0) to V=C (R up to infinity). These states are independent of time in an eternal universe (no big bang).

 

The model successfully predicts the observed empirical universe without the inconsistencies and paradoxes of the standard big bang model. It also eliminates singularities of General Relativity and explains inner workings of QM in relativistic terms including collapse of the wave function, non-locality, quantum gravity, anti-gravity (expansion), dark-energy (Vacuum), and dark matter without the need for ridiculous parallel multi-verses or super-luminous inflation.

 

At smaller V, matter and gravity dominate. As V increases to the order of C, matter converts to kinetic energy. At V=C, matter/distance/time fully dilate to zero leading to the purely dynamic Zero-point state wherein physicality ends into an absolute un-manifested state  of pure kinetic consciousness representing the implicate order of the cosmic law (the law of conservation of existence).

 

I am enclosing two papers –

1. Summary of the URM

2. Full paper describing the model and validations against empirical data.

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 1:55 pm
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Dear Avtar,

Do you have a top-down mathematical model in which quantum fields and particles come out from consciousness?

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

 

Matter, mind, and consciousness represent a continuum in a living universe. Please refer to the following links:

 

The Unlikely Fate of Two Universes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-unlikely-fate-of-two-universes_us_5947dcdee4b024b7e0df4de0

 

The Last Paradox: Does the Universe Have A Mind? 
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59511dbee4b0f078efd98365

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 2:36 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

On 06 Jul 2017, at 22:18, Joseph McCard wrote:

 

 

Is matter independent of consciousness.

 

 

I think that in the Vedanta of Sankara, like in the theology of numbers, or like in the work of Plotinus, matter is a creation of the soul (Atman). The body is a biological or arithmetical illusion. In the theology of Numbers, the physical laws should be derived from the logic of machine or number (self)-observability. So in such theories, matter depends on consciousness. The propositional logic of the observable have been partially derived, and up to now fits well with the facts and with the reports of 1p experience (local particular consciousness). I can explain more, but at some point, this explanation relies on results in mathematical logic which are not well known by non-logicians.

This explanation here is coherent with the non-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. It generalize Drawin, somehow, as the laws of physics evolve in some logical space, but its interest relies mainly in the fact that it does not eliminate the first person view, nor the quale et consciousness, unlike some purely materialist approach (Churchland, Dennett, etc.).

 

Bruno Marchal

 

 

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/37a32938-86bc-4946-a525-b898b2f5a915%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/561307DB-1C7E-48D3-98C9-518732753BA4%40ulb.ac.be.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d1daef92d-22b1-1a5cf%40webprd-a94.mail.aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/9a885a49d5e8402f8d24c9d372593fc7%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Multisense Realism]

Against my better judgment I will chime in on this thread. I have had this conversation before with Joe McCard, and while we both agree on some general principles about the absolute primacy of consciousness, we disagree on the details which he mentions here, namely:

1. The incorrigibility of 'action'.

2. The conception of consciousness as 'aware-ized energy'.

3. The ontological status of 'identity'.

//On Jul 9, 2017 7:55 PM, "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

"So, you are suggesting (speed zero) that there are things that do not move ( I think)? One of the basic properties of consciousness, as I understand it, is that consciousness never stops. //

 

1. Let us take an example from ordinary experience; the flavor 'sweet'. Does sweetness move? Does sweetness stop moving? To me, these questions are rhetorical illustrations of why the property of movement should not presumed to be a condition to apply to consciousness in general. Moving is a perceptual change that is specific to the sense of touch (tangibility) and sight (visibility). It doesn't make sense to say that a flavor, odor, sound, or idea is literally 'moving' other than when it happens to be associated with an inner sensation of 'motion-like' qualities. We may find music emotionally 'moving', or feel that the sound is moving closer to one ear or another, however this I would say is part of our complex human awareness rather than a fundamental understanding of what movement is and what it can apply to. Action is a feature of certain experiences, and perhaps all of our personal experiences are subject to an overall 'action' of autobiographical progress in aging, but that does not mean that consciousness 'never stops'. To the contrary, any experience of change is necessarily dependent upon the stability of whatever sense modality is containing the changing qualities.

//Since all matter (where matter is concentrated energy), and energy, are composed of consciousness, no matter or energy ever stops moving. I have read that at the temp of absolute zero, things still move."//

2. Matter is not concentrated energy. This is a misunderstanding of Einsteinian mass-energy equivalence. I'm not a physicist, but I have taken an interest in this particular topic because it comes up so often in metaphysics. (see my post https://multisenserealism.com/2016/09/07/everything-is-not-energy/) Energy is measured in terms such as calorie, kilowatt hour, or joule. It is an invisible, intangible abstraction which is conserved *within calculations of physical theory* but should not be confused with an immaterial substance which can be materialized by changing its density. Energy can no more be 'aware-ized' than 'capital gains' can be industrialized. I propose a sensory-motive primitive instead; Aesthetic-participatory phenomena which are divided or diffracted in some sense but retain eternal unity in another. I propose the means by which this diffraction is produced is with the introduction of various qualities and degrees of insensitivity (anesthetic masking of aesthetic phenomena to make the participatory aspect indirect).

(Joe)

Through a series of dilemmas. The first dilemma is that between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so. This is, as I just posted to Siegfried, how the One became many. This dilemma resulted in what is called action, and from action's own working upon itself, we see that an identity is formed (with no identity, and we have had a recent discussion on this, there is nothing). So, you see, action and identity are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure (and explained following, why all energy is aware-ized).

It sounds like the idea is to explain the addition of 'aware' to 'energy' using terms such as 'desire' which must be seen as senseless in the absence of awareness. It's tautological to say that energy becomes a desire by desiring to manifest itself. I don't think it has any explanatory power, and it seems to me a wish to substantiate traditional teachings. I don't see it as helpful to say that action is a part of all structure. What action belongs to the structure of a square?

Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action involves change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent on stability (you are still you, even though you constantly change). Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is the second dilemma.

This seems to me to be a logical fallacy. The premise is that we constantly change, therefore identity cannot depend on stability. I think this bit of modus ponens thinking can just as fruitfully be reversed. In the modus tollens version, we can begin from the premise that in some sense our identity never changes. The name which we are born with in some sense refers to a person who remains constant from birth to death. Birth and death are boundary conditions of our personal experience, but that experience is presented directly as a continuous, stable narrative. We can look at this narrative experience as the ontological, 'real' phenomenon without attaching it to an abstract label of 'identity'. Our life is us. It changes its contents but the top level structure does not act, it is simply present...until it isn't.

Thanks,

Carry on...

Craig

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Joseph,

I use the same definition of "atom" that chemists use; they were once thought to be indivisible, but this has been disproven. Have you read anywhere that the indivisibility of quanta has been disproven? I have not, and your long paragraph about Leibnitz doesn't suggest you have either. Leibnitz's understanding of mathematics was pure genius, but it has nothing to do with his purely philosophical  theory of monads, which remains speculative.

You say all energy is aware-ized.  It isn't up to me to disprove this, it is up to you to prove that energy cannot exist without conscious entities being aware of it -- if you can. For a long time after the Big Bang, there were no physically embodied conscious entities observing the goings-on of the universe, were there? Yet as we reconstruct those early eons, there was a tremendous amount of both matter and energy going into the production of stars and galaxies.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Joseph McCard [joseph....@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Subject: [MaybeSpam][Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Peter,

You asked:

"What are quanta, if not indivisible units of energy?

Let's look at, "Leibniz" (R. Arthur), ch 4, Mathematical Philosophy, p.79-80, just to confirm that I am not making ALL of this up as I go along : )

"One of Leibniz's most distinctive doctrines is his advocacy of the actual infinite...the great majority of mathematicians  and philosophers had sided with Aristotle, who denied an infinity of things could exist  [see, for example, A's infinite regress argument]. Aristotle had formulated his views largely in response to the famous paradoxes of Zeno [something I would like to see Bruno Marchal do]...Parmenides, that all that exists is One, changeless and indivisible (his arg is detailed by Arthur here)  [Vinod's last comment to me invoked similar ideas] ...Aristotle responded by insisting that the parts of a continuous thing are nothing but potential  parts: they are the parts into which it could be divided....This brings us to Leibniz's work on infinite series and the calculus" (Arthur)

Leibniz's monad was an out growth of this line of thought, not an actual part, but a possible part. Jonathan Edwards, a contributor to this list, is better qualified to talk about this, but what Arthur wrote covers the gist of the idea. However, I could provide some of the gruesome details if you had further questions.

We must unfortunately deal with analogies, because they can form bridgeworks between concepts. For the sake of discussion, there are units of consciousness, then, as there are units of matter. I do not want you to think of these units as particles. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness is obviously not physical

"Peter: What was the context of Feynman's quote?"

>http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html<

"Atoms are matter in its most tangible form." 

So, you see, you are using "atoms" for the sake of a discussion, when no such unit actually exists. But yes, if we discuss physical reality, "atoms" are a good way to do it, as I see you are doing. 

"E=mc^2 tells us that this matter is transmutible into enormous amounts of kinetic energy."

Yes, I also believe that the equation expresses something true, that matter is simply a concentrated form of energy. Although that's how I understand the equation, and this perspective is consistent with my approach, I have done the research, and there is general disagreement as to how to interpret the equation. I note that the equation says nothing about how that spontaneous transformation takes place. I have stated my understanding, consciousness units, intentionally slow down, to become electromagnetic energy units, which then can form patterns of concentrated energy

"Peter: This is realized to some degree in nuclear weapons, which produce energy that can accelerate mass according to the equations F = ma and thus produce kinetic energy in its more traditional form, E = mv^2.

Energy creates mass doesn't it? If, as you are saying, energy accelerates mass, the mass must already exist. So, in this case, energy does not seem to actually produce mass, if I understand what you are saying. 

'Peter: "speed zero" has to take place within a specific frame of reference, and that frame can be at a high speed relative to other frames. When I am "motionless" it is with respect to the solid surface of the earth, but that is rotating, and orbiting the sun, which in turn is orbiting the galaxy center, etc.'

Yes, Such highly specific reference frames, as Descartes 3-d graph, a theoretical organized structure, which imposed his ideas of order and predictability, are artificial constructs use for the sake of discussing the nature of reality, just as "monad", "atom", and "consciousness unit" are. And so, each concept reaches further down the deep well of understanding the nature of reality. But, the words are not the real things. Only your thoughts, feelings, and experiences are real. But, we use words and symbols, and frameworks, as ineffective as they are in communication, they are what is available.

"Peter: At absolute zero, molecular motion stops but there is still the "motion" of electrons around atomic nuclei, a motion that we cannot fully understand since the electron is not something that has a specific location and specific momentum at any given time."

Units of consciousness move faster than the speed of light, then - but that statement itself is meaningless in a way, since the units exist outside as well as inside the framework in which light itself has meaning. 

As these units approach physical structure, they do slow down, in our terms. Electrons you speak of, are slow dullards in comparison to electromagnetic energy units. It goes without saying thatv the units of consciousness are "mental", or if you prefer, disembodies, though from their inner organization all physical forms emerge. 

"Peter: Since we are far from a unified field theory in physics,"

You are far from a UFT. 

"Peter: how can anyone claim to be close to a unified theory of consciousness and matter? 

Matter is a concentrated form of energy, and all energy is conscious. 

"Peter: Just saying that "gravity is the effect of gravitrons while electrical attraction is the effect of photons and nuclear binding is the effect of mesons" is not a unified field theory.

But saying all those bits are different forms of consciousness units, unifies them. Consciousness can best be described as a field. 

"Peter: Are we really any closer to a unified theory of matter and consciousness that is less simplistic than the text I put in quotes just now?

How's this: Consciousness is aware-ized energy, and all energy is aware-ized? 

"Peter: Joe's slogan at the end is something I can't grok, and I doubt that he can grok it in a way that survives under critical cross-examination.

Well, like the Dalai Lama has been quoted as saying in a recent thread here, if you can disprove my unification "theory", I will thank you for doing so, and adopt whatever conception of the nature of a unified theory would be. 

I think what I have written is consistent with Eastern metaphysical principles, and I add that Leibniz has had a connection to that tradition.)

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7229879a-1f42-4989-a2bc-263d3d84a028%40googlegroups.com.

[Alex Hankey]

RE: consciousness never stops. 

Of course it can stop. What is Samadhi? 

What is the state of pure consciousness? 

On 10 July 2017 at 03:54, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

Joseph wrote:

"So, you are suggesting (speed zero) that there are things that do not move ( I think)? One of the basic properties of consciousness, as I understand it, is that consciousness never stops. 

Since all matter (where matter is concentrated energy), and energy, are composed of consciousness, no matter or energy ever stops moving. I have read that at the temp of absolute zero, things still move."

"As per the Vedantic/Upanishadic view, consciousness is not composed of some corpuscular discrete particles/entities that it may move or not move." (Vinod) 

I hope my response to Peter clarified your interpretation of what I wrote, I only wish I was a better writer. I agree, consciousness is not composed of "some corpuscular discrete particles/entities that it may move or not move."

We only speak that way for the sake of this form of communication, words. 

"Further, there is no space, in which such particles will move." (Vinod)

There is no space, no time, they are only the artificial constructions of our minds. I believe the word is "maya"? 

"At the cosmological level, cosmic consciousness is  a Holistic indivisible Infinite One in which all the matter particles and energy moves."(Vinod)

But how does all that happen? How did the Holistic indivisible infinite One come to experience itself as many? I have made suggestions, not stated commandments. It simply divided Itself, becoming this and that, and that which is neither this or that, but which existence makes this and that possible. 

"At the micro human level, localized consciousness emerges out from the mirroring of the cosmic consciousness in the different derivatives of the primordial physicality ( Moola Prakriti?Maya) in form of Causal, Astral and Physical bodies. So at the biological also, consciousness is an indivisible, holistic one but it becomes limited in its power, potential, and purity in the process of the manifestation of the cosmic consciousness. Emergence of the consciousness at the localized biological level from the cosmic consciousness level is an apparent one and not absolute the way localized space emerges in different vessels from the cosmic space." (Vinod)

As far as I think I understood what you just said, I agree. What must I have said to make you think otherwise? Do I express myself poorly, or is this a reflection of culture and language differences? 

Joseph wrote further: "Consciousness is aware-ized energy, and all energy is aware-ized. Consciousness is the by-product of a dynamic imbalance between action, acting within and upon itself, and the identity that re-action creates."

"How is all energy aware-ized?" (Vinod)

Through a series of dilemmas. The first dilemma is that between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so. This is, as I just posted to Siegfried, how the One became many. This dilemma resulted in what is called action, and from action's own working upon itself, we see that an identity is formed (with no identity, and we have had a recent discussion on this, there is nothing). So, you see, action and identity are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure (and explained following, why all energy is aware-ized).

Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action involves change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent on stability (you are still you, even though you constantly change). Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is the second dilemma.

It is this dilemma, between identity's constant attempts to maintain stability and action's inherent drive for change, that results in an imbalance, the creative by-product that is consciousness of Self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balance, so creative, that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.  And so, you see, consciousness never stops. 

Consciousness of Self is not ego consciousness. Consciousness of Self is still consciousness directly connected with action. Ego consciousness is a state resulting from a third dilemma, which happens when consciousness of Self attempts to separate Itself from action. Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness can exist without action, we have the third dilemma.

Consciousness of Self involves a consciousness of self within  and as a part of action. Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of Self attempts to divorce Itself from action -an attempt on the part of consciousness  to perceive action as an object, and top perceive action as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than a cause, of ego's own existence. 

"Is light from Sun  -- e.m energy or gravitational energy between the Sun and Earth or strong nuclear forces within nucleus has awareness of Self or of matter or other energies?"(Vinod)

Not sure what you are asking here. All forms of energy are patterns of consciousness, Gestalts of aware energy. 

"Consciousness exists at the most fundamental level by virtue of its existence, therefore, there is no question of its emergence from any phenomenon.

Consciousness create phenomena, phenomena do not create consciousness. Given that "phenomenon" means "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question...the object of a person's perception; what the senses or the mind notice.

"In view of this, how it could be a product of a dynamic imbalance between action, acting within itself, and the identity that reaction creates?

I hope I have responded clearly  to your concerns and questions. 

"This is the view on the .consciousness of PQM by Jack Sarfatti and Sotherland."

Do you mean the view that phenomena create consciousness? My apologies, but I do not know what ".consciousness of PQM by Jack Sarfatti and Sotherland" is.

joe

p.s. I am as of yet unfamiliar with the protocol here regarding who posts what to whom, so I am sending this to whatever address it goes to from my e-mail, and copying and posting it on the forum 

also, no apologies for missiveness 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ae46161b-f8a6-41ea-9d57-d8c068834141%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tina LIndhard]

Hello Alex

RE: consciousness never stops. 

Of course it can stop. What is Samadhi? 

What is the state of pure consciousness? 

It depends on which way you are looking - if you see Consciousness as an entity expressing itself through you via different levels of consciousness, IT never ends. However from  the individual´s side he or she can experience the different levels -(see Arka´s Theory of the 6 Main Levels of Consciousness) which culminates in the state of Samadhi - and through union he or she can experience Pure Consciousness - which as you know in India is said to be SatChitAnanda. 

Maybe this helps - warm regards Tina 

Tina Lindhard

PhD Consciousness Studies (IUPS)

President CCAEspaña

CICA: Chair of Consciousness Research
conso...@gmail.com

www.tinalindhard.org

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAKGpHci-Oe-d%3D0EGcVZJizxTeSJjYfZv1w%3DUorwLWA-YVftotA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

>jasleenbal2 writes: With all due respect. Why are we slaves of our logic. Why we need to disect everything to understand it. If yoga is a technique that worked for our forefathers, than why not forget logic and have a leap of faith in it.

The consciousness of our mundane mind, of the brain, basically has two parts. There is the nonverbal part, what we share with the mouse, and there is the machinery of symbolic reasoning. James Anderson of Brown University, did decades of psychology research on how humans learn arithmetic, and he concluded: There is a very fine tuned ancient spatial system, and a buggy formal symbolic system like an alpha version of a new software package.The two come together as we learn arithmetic, he showed, but it's more than that.

Some people are slaves of their logic (the symbolic part) more than others, and they vary a lot regarding how valid their logic system is. Because sensory inputs and primary feelings come in mostly to the nonverbal part in humans, those who let the symbolic part rule like a tyrant usually do not notice the paranormal inputs which would help them escape from their prison. Even mundane sanity and effectiveness require better integration of nonverbal and symbolic parts. Those who have  big gaps between their symbolic part and their subsymbolic part are in some ways more prepared for psychiatric treatment than for higher mysticism or yoga. All too many powerful people in religions all over the world are crazy in this way. (At www.werbos.com/Mind_in_Time.pdf, published in Russia, I discuss how neural network research ends up supporting and explaining the work of Confucius and of Freud on this important topic.)

For those who are open to nonverbal experience, coming from inside out as well as outside in, yoga has indeed been one  of the great paths of growth.  Not the only one, and there are many forms and approaches to yoga. I hope that better understanding both in mysticism and in science, integrating accomplishments from all over the earth, can allow major growth and globalization in how to accelerate inner human growth.

Best regards,

  Paul

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Avtar.

Thanks for copies of your papers. In one of the papers you mention Dyson’s theory of three minds. This looks somewhat similar to

‘t Hooft’s  idea of three levels of reality (1) everyday classical deterministic  (2) microscopic quantum non-deterministic (3) deterministic again at Planck energies. What do you think of his ideas?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d2a3313ea-3229-19f39%40webprd-a71.mail.aol.com.

[Asingh2384]

Joseph wrote:

 

"So, you are suggesting (speed zero) that there are things that do not move ( I think)? One of the basic properties of consciousness, as I understand it, is that consciousness never stops. 

Since all matter (where matter is concentrated energy), and energy, are composed of consciousness, no matter or energy ever stops moving. I have read that at the temp of absolute zero, things still move."

 

Motion in the universe is an objective evidence of consciousness; a dead universe would have no motion.  In my Universal Relativity model, the level of manifestation of consciousness is represented by the magnitude of velocity V. V=0 represents absence of consciousness and V=C represents pure absolute consciousness. In between, there are infinite levels of manifested consciousness including matter and mind.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ae46161b-f8a6-41ea-9d57-d8c068834141%40googlegroups.com.

[John Jay Kineman]

Its interesting to ask how relative thermodynamics is. Zero movement at absolute zero in a laboratory, even if possible, is still careening through space along with the Earth.

Sent from my iPhone

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Joe, there are various levels of proof and disproof. There is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, like the proof, attributed to Euclid, that there is no end to the prime numbers. There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in the fact of the earth having been inhabited by dinosaurs long before man came on the scene. And then there is the standard of "preponderance of evidence," such as courts use in civil lawsuits [as opposed to criminal trials, where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to be the standard].

I don't think you can even claim preponderance of evidence for your hypothesis of all energy being aware-ized, or of "There is a constant pulsation of matter and energy going into and out of the universe as we speak," or of all time being synchronous.  I go with William James, who was of the opinion that a timeless mind is a "gratuitious fiction."

I seldom venture publicly into philosophical or scientific speculation without having at least a good feeling that the preponderance of evidence is on my side. It is hard enough for others to keep track of my opinions without me revealing mere speculations; I prefer to keep those to myself except on rare occasions. So don't be too sure that I am "obviously" different from you in some specific way.

Peter Nyikos

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Joseph McCard [joseph....@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:23 AM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.

Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Peter,

"I use the same definition of "atom" that chemists use; they were once thought to be indivisible, but this has been disproven. Have you read anywhere that the indivisibility of quanta has been disproven?

 I have not, and your long paragraph about Leibnitz doesn't suggest you have either." (Peter)

Are you suggesting that ANYTHING can be proven or disproven, or even just any arithmetic statements. Isn't there always a Catch-22 going on? 

"Leibnitz's understanding of mathematics was pure genius, but it has nothing to do with his purely philosophical  theory of monads, which remains speculative."

I can refer you to Ch. 4, "Leibniz", by Richard Arthur. Jonathan Edwards, >http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan-edwards< ,a contributor to this forum would do a better job than me (he is the one who recommended the Arthur book on Leibniz) , but I think he must be sleeping : )

"You say all energy is aware-ized.  It isn't up to me to disprove this, it is up to you to prove that energy cannot exist without conscious entities being aware of it -- if you can.

All energy is aware-ized. It is not my goal to prove or disprove this to anyone, as I have said, that is impossible. You are correct in suggesting that you and I have to do it for ourselves, subjectively, if we choose to do so. 

It is my goal to experience, feel, and think about,  the Truth, or Not-Truth, of this claim, for myself. Other than that, it is simply my suggestion to the other people I share this planet with, an observation, not a final judgement.  

Obviously it is not your goal. 

"For a long time after the Big Bang," (Peter)

The unwarranted claim is that time is asynchronous. As you see it, as a fundamental part of your belief system, events do not all occur simultaneously. That is your reality. That is not my reality. 

"there were no physically embodied conscious entities observing the goings-on of the universe, were there?"

Yes, as I said, I understand that you believe that, and why you believe that, I think. I am having a different experience. But, you do what you gotta do man : )

"Yet as we reconstruct those early eons, there was a tremendous amount of both matter and energy going into the production of stars and galaxies."

There is a constant pulsation of matter and energy going into and out of the universe as we speak. The energy of this universe is constantly being renewed, contrary to what the laws of physics now claim.

Every child born into this world, today, is a s vital and energetic as a child born 50,000 years ago. 

If you can prove my claim wrong, paraphrasing the Dalai Lama, I will concede : )

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/9cf52d3b-849d-4375-b6af-ac262c418c2c%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Jul 10, 2017 12:38 PM, "John Jay Kineman" <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

Its interesting to ask how relative thermodynamics is. Zero movement at absolute zero in a laboratory, even if possible, is still careening through space along with the Earth.

That is a good question. Proper einstein-style field theories are transparently relativistic. You can see just by looking at them how "time is just a dimension" (because they conform to Einstein notation.) But canonical QED, and the Schrodinger equation at its core, is not. Time is treated totally differently from space. It was proven long ago that the resulting predictions are still relativistic in a certain sense, but it takes some logic, and it is disturbing that time is treated so differently. THis is one of the reasons why some of us seek a deeper "law of everything", transparently relativistic.

Thermodynamics likewise is largely about Pr (S (t)), the probability of possible states of the cosmos at a time t. As in KQED, time is treated differently. The most solid mainstream account (important for folks who want to do more than just BS about entropy and free energy) is the quantum grand canonical ensemble, a "matrix" over Fock-Hilbert space. The allowed possibilities for pr (S(t)) do treat energy and velocity on equal footing, along with other conservation laws; thus they are more transparently relativistic than KQED, in a way. But for any given allowed distribution, there is a mean velocity, a preferred direction in space-time. And of course there are parameters like temperature in the grand ensemble formula, which can be found in standard texts on condensed matter physics.

Best regards,  Paul

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jul 2017, at 10:27, Alex Hankey wrote:

RE: consciousness never stops. 

Of course it can stop. What is Samadhi? 

What is the state of pure consciousness? 

I tend to agree with this. There might be a state of consciousness out of time (and space). Salvia divinorum experience's reports mention them frequently. We cannot remind such state properly though, and experiences proves nothing, still less memories of ineffable experiences, but some theories can relate them better than others. 

I can accept that pure consciousness can "remain conscious" even when out of time.

You see, I hope, how much that can seem weird.

That is something I got from Salvia, not from machine's theology, and I have competing ways to approach this with the interview of the (Gödel-Löbian) universal number(s).

Bruno Marchal

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAKGpHci-Oe-d%3D0EGcVZJizxTeSJjYfZv1w%3DUorwLWA-YVftotA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Asingh2384]

Hi Kashyap:

The Universal Relativity Model describes the continuum of relative reality at all levels from 0 to the absolute 100%.

Best Regards

Avtar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/b768398aac9543d597329e1cd6e44117%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Hi Avtar,

Is derivation of Eq. (1) in your two papers available on line?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d2ddca3d9-3229-1bc2a%40webprd-a71.mail.aol.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on July 10, 2017 wrote:

>I have had this conversation before with Joe McCard, and 

>while we both agree on some general principles about the 

>absolute primacy of consciousness, we disagree on the 

>details which he mentions here

.

[S.P.] In your 2013 jcs-online post you wrote: 

"Progressions are nothing but a sense of progress. Time and space are nothing but a sense of experienced sequence and division. It's all sense. Sense is the capacity to experience and project experience, which is sensory-motive presence." (for details, see the attached html file).

.

So, I would like to know whether your views were not changed since then (my reply to your ideas is in another html file attached below).

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy 

---

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:11 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

-- 

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on July 9, 2017 wrote:

>You say all energy is aware-ized.  It isn't up to me to disprove this, 

>it is up to you to prove that energy cannot exist without conscious 

>entities being aware of it -- if you can.

.

[S.P.] Joseph's statement that "all energy is aware-ized" is a meta-theoretical one -- it is an element of his belief system. Therefore, it requires no proofs. 

.

Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com> on July 10, 2017 wrote:

> [Joseph McCard] consciousness never stops. 

>

>Of course it can stop. What is Samadhi? 

>What is the state of pure consciousness? 

.

[S.P.] Consciousness cannot stop. The flywheel of the process of cognition never stops circling while the organism is alive. When the doctors say that the patient has lost consciousness, this does not mean that the organism became devoid of consciousness. It only means that the patient's consciousness does not function in its normal everyday regime, while it continues functioning in its sub-conscious and ultra-conscious regimes. 

.

Second. For me, the "state of pure consciousness", or "Samadhi" is the quality, intensity, and specificity of cognitive activity of the organism while being a fetus in the womb or an egg.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 12:33 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Joseph,

On 09 Jul 2017, at 18:00, Joseph McCard wrote:

Peter,

You asked:

"What are quanta, if not indivisible units of energy?

Let's look at, "Leibniz" (R. Arthur), ch 4, Mathematical Philosophy, p.79-80, just to confirm that I am not making ALL of this up as I go along : )

"One of Leibniz's most distinctive doctrines is his advocacy of the actual infinite...the great majority of mathematicians  and philosophers had sided with Aristotle, who denied an infinity of things could exist  [see, for example, A's infinite regress argument]. Aristotle had formulated his views largely in response to the famous paradoxes of Zeno [something I would like to see Bruno Marchal do]...Parmenides, that all that exists is One, changeless and indivisible (his arg is detailed by Arthur here)  [Vinod's last comment to me invoked similar ideas] ...Aristotle responded by insisting that the parts of a continuous thing are nothing but potential  parts: they are the parts into which it could be divided....This brings us to Leibniz's work on infinite series and the calculus" (Arthur)

I side with Parmenides, and, to be sure, I have no problem with "actual infinities" as mind tools (like we can use any math in meta-mathematics). But once we assume mechanism, it simplifies a lot to restrict the ontology on the finite, and keep the geometrical, the analytical and the physical in the first person (plural) view. In that case, the ONE become the changeless Arithmetical Truth (in a first step), but then again, even at that level, when we identify eventually the Brahman and the Atman, we can "limit" the ONE to the (quite tiny) sigma_1 arithmetical truth (but this describes most plausibly the enlightenment state, and to assert that last identification is a "blaspheme" (true, but not assertable, even as axiom). That is a subtle point. With mechanism, we get a distinct theory for each different altered state of consciousness, and a corresponding notion of matter. The math shows that all such matter obey a quantum logic. Some form of quantum mechanics seems to remain valid in Heaven and Hell!

Bruno

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7229879a-1f42-4989-a2bc-263d3d84a028%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen Jarosek]

Dear Avtar,

Having glanced through your two papers, I appreciate aspects of your analysis… for example, I too have reasons for rejecting the Big Bang interpretation of the universe. However, you do accept many of relativity theory’s premises, which I do not. Relativity theory (SGR – special/general relativity) is a dead weight, in my opinion, that restrains further development in the sciences. We need to clarify once and for all, whether there is just cause to continue including references to SGR in our conversations about consciousness. Here are my reasons for getting rid of SGR completely (taken from an outline that I posted in another forum):

THE PROBLEM WITH SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY (SGR)

Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c). But this conflicts with QM, where some manner of information transfer has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous (though not in the context of communication – no communication theorem applies). The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right. I am putting my money on QM, and I do so for the following reasons:

    1) Experimental evidence consistent with QM is compelling and repeatable (some silly or annoying interpretations of said results notwithstanding). Bell's inequality and entanglement have been proven experimentally time and time again, with good, smoking-gun evidence that is difficult to refute;
    2) SGR has no smoking-gun evidence... the evidence that they produce is open to concerns about confirmation bias, and brings us back to Binswanger (2013) and Horton (2015), and the question of peer-review favoritism, and interpretations by "experts" with an agenda. Most importantly, there is no GPS smoking-gun evidence, GPS technology does NOT factor in relativity corrections, but relies on basic feedback control algorithms and Laplace transforms - Barry Springer (2013). This GPS urban legend is trotted out at every opportunity like a prize bull at the Spring Fair, but it is complete nonsense, debunked as comprehensively as the wage-gap myth has been. But it's the only "smoking gun" evidence that they ever had... and it had me until I started digging around;
    3) So we've dispensed with the GPS smoking gun. What other evidence do they cite? Galactic red-shift as evidence for the Big Bang? The tired-light hypothesis provides an alternative explanation. And the more they say things, like, "but every scientist knows that tired light is nonsense and not taken seriously any more", the more I am reminded of Fake News Media and CNN. Nope, the tired light hypothesis is as real as red sunsets (photons losing energy tend to the red, in accordance with E=hf. And light scattering by the particles or molecules of interstellar space can also contribute to redshift, as what happens at sunset, when photons have more atmosphere to transit). And no, the Tolman brightness test and other tests are not inconsistent with tired light. We need to ask what part a broken science might be playing in confabulating a miasma of Big Bang Baloney;
    4) Mercury's perihelion shift. Again, no smoking-gun evidence here. Experimental evidence is not conclusive, because said relativity correction contributes of the order, only, of about 7.5% of the total. Given our concerns about Fake News Culture and the peer-review process (Binswanger 2013 and Horton 2015), we need to be concerned whether this small fraction was arrived at impartially, or in the spirit of confirmation bias. Did they factor everything else in? What about the asteroid belt? Or Dark Matter for that matter?
    5) SGR is based on an assumption about the speed of light, and that's all it is... an assumption. They've constructed self-consistent mathematical proofs around that assumption in order to arrive at what I personally conclude is a major category error... the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time;
    6) Several sources are available online that debunk relativity theory. It is pointless enumerating them here, as the arguments are detailed and complex, and takes us beyond topic. But for those who are interested, googling [relativity theory debunked] provides a good starting point. Here is one compelling refutation of SGR found through just such a search: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp ;
    7) And finally, an important question that does not seem to entered into mainstream physics discourse. Is it possible that SGR's second postulate, the constancy of c, actually relates to a quantum-mechanical phenomenon rather than a relativistic one? If so, then the central axiom of special relativity, with its relevance to general relativity, no longer holds. This is a question that I am researching at the moment, and it relates to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the notion of "quantum tunneling"... that a particle's motion through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in Newtonian physics.

SGR's inconsistencies with QM are non-trivial. That nonlocal effects are instantaneous regardless of distance is a huge problem for SGR. That in itself might be enough to kill this SGR monstrosity once and for all, yet the SGR dogma continues to thrive. Like whack-a-mole, it repeatedly keeps wedging its weakly supported assertions into physics discourse, as if "nothing, not even information, can go faster than light" were an established axiom. No sooner do quantum physicists come up with an intriguing conjecture that deserves to be explored, than up it pops again... the constancy of c postulate, as if SGR were an established scientific fact. This weakly supported conjecture is a ball-and-chain that needs to be settled once and for all. This will free up discourse in QM to explore further developments without being hampered by weakly supported objections.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Binswanger, M. (2013, December 17). Excellence by nonsense: The competition for publications in modern science. Springer Link:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_3/fulltext.html
Horton, R. (2015, April 11). Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? The Lancet, 385 (9976), 1380:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
Springer, Barry (2013). Does GPS Navitation Rely Upon Einstein's Relativity? Proceedings of the NPA:
http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps-system-rely-upon-einsteins-relativity/
Xinhang Shen (2016). Challenge to the special theory of relativity. Physics Essays 29, 1 (2016):
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

Regards,
sj

[Paul Werbos]

On Jul 11, 2017 11:45 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjar...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

. However, you do accept many of relativity theory’s premises, which I do not. Relativity theory (SGR – special/general relativity) is a dead weight,

As a born heretic, I too was much offended by popular, literary and philosophical stores about special relativity -- until I learned the modern proper formulation, in variance under proper Lorentz transformation, and Einstein-style vision of a cosmos full of fields and energy but no magical point particles. All aspects of physics are properly challenged regularly and intensely, but at the moment there are many aspects physics FAR less tested and certain, and promising for serious scientific challenge, than special relativity. Even general relativity has held up quite well despite very intense (and laudable) questioning; arxiv.org has reviews posted.

Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c).

That is what you read in the popular press. And who knows, from the viewpoint of literary criticism you might find statements by Einstein to that effect. (Most serious physicists would not know or care about offhand statements.) But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations.

From the mathematics of qualitative properties of PDE, we know that information cannot propagate faster than light if we solve PDE in forwards time, if the PDE obey special relativity and if the PDE possess a special property called "quasilinearity." (Probably Google would point you to the huge literature on this topic.) But these are big "ifs"!!! In fact, MQED complies with special relativity just as much as the canonical version of QED does, and it does predict that we could send real informative signals back through time, just as we send Morse code along a telegraph or even photographic images.

If you Google "tachyons," you will see another mechanism by which ftl communication is logically consistent with special relativity.. though no experiments have been done yet which support either tachyons or ftl, at least not convincingly. 

But this conflicts with QM, where some manner of information transfer has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous (though not in the context of communication – no communication theorem applies).

No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period. The mainstream confusion about relativity versus QM is all about gravity, about the extension to general relativity. Since most of physics is not about gravity, that conflict us doing nothing at all, in my view, to retard the advance of knowledge. Most physicists would agree with that much, but I view the true situation as even stronger. Under local realism of the Einstein type (getting rid of the extraneous assumptions he used in predicting EPR), unifying the rest with general relativity is mathematically trivial, and there is no empirical evidence that the simplest unification  (due to folks like Wheeler and Carmelli) is inexact.

The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

Again, flat out false.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Stephen,

In general controversies in science should be welcome. There should not be any censorship. However by combining special and general theory into SGR, you are over arguing the controversial part. Special theory of relativity (SR) has been verified by innumerable experiments. In fact the whole fields of Nuclear and High Energy Physics have come up during the last 80 years or so, strongly verifying SR every day in the labs! QM has no conflict with SR. Quantum field theory (QFT) is based on combining QM and SR. There are verifications of QFT to 1 part in billion to trillion. Bell’s experiments do not violate velocity of light as upper limit. There is perfectly good non-real local interpretation using QFT.

True, there are some open issues of combining QM and general theory of relativity (GR). In many cases where one can show that one  is much more important than the other, both have passed with flying colors. In the domain where both are likely to be important (such as interior of black holes or origin of universe) admittedly there are lots of controversies. When we have a theory of quantum gravity, it may need modification of both QM and GR. But like, when SR and GR came, Newton’s mechanics and theory of gravity were not trashed. In fact NASA uses Newton’s theory every day in planetary flights. So my belief is that in 50 to 100 years even if there is some merger of QM and GR, they will be still separately used in lot of areas of science. I will look at what you are saying about GPS, but it is a very small part of verification of SR and GR. So I am not much concerned!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2fa47%24a920d950%24fb628bf0%24%40net.au.

[Asingh2384]

Hi Kashyap:

All derivations are in my book - "The Hidden Factor"" as referenced in my papers.

Thanks

Avtar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/3d8389e84a93454993bd4954a6a714a1%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Multisense Realism]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

Craig : )

I am actually happy to hear from you. Craig has the most engaging and interesting web site I have ever read. >https://multisenserealism.com< I recommend it to everyone. 

Thanks Joe!

I end up repeating myself more than anything I think, but the picture seems to get a little clearer each time.

 

"we disagree on the details which he mentions here, namely: 1. The incorrigibility of 'action'." (Craig)

You have such a great vocabulary, but what you just said, what does "incorrigibility of 'action' " mean? 

I'm using (or perhaps misusing) 'incorrigiblity' in the philosophical sense of "a property of a philosophical proposition, which implies that it is necessarily true simply by virtue of being believed. A common example of such a proposition is René Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am")." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorrigibility)

...So I'm saying that I disagree that propositions about action being fundmamental must be believed because there is no other choice. I'm saying that with the aesthetic primitive, action and stasis are qualities which apply to some kinds of sensation (tangible and visible) and not others (olfactory-gustatory, aural, sense of self (ipsory?)).

"2. The conception of consciousness as 'aware-ized energy'." (Craig)

I hope I have at least presented a lucid explanation. "If everyone is thinkin 'the same, no one is thinkin' " (G.S. Patton, my fathers commander in WWII during The Battle of the Bulge)

 I think that it's lucid to a point, sure, and it's not an uncommon view, I just have a peeve about 'energy' because I think that concept is based on a vague, and mostly fictional concept which is very popular. The problem is that it gets in the way of seeing that consciousness is absolute and needs no 'energetic' substrate. It is actually 'energy' which is real only to the extent that it is a particular kind of perception-of-participatory-effects-on-perceptions. The medium isn't energy, the medium is awareness. It's awareness which is being 'energized' when it frames itself in tactile-tangible terms.

'3. The ontological status of 'identity'." (Craig)

yes. Identity can be described as a Gestalt of aware-ized energy. You might also consult Alasdair Macintyre's version of personal identity in "After Virtue". 

I guess my beef with 'identity' is that it is agnostic towards aesthetics. An identity seems easy to consider to be a fact of existence rather than an experiential phenomenon. To me, an 'identity' is actually a quale. Its 'existence' depends upon aesthetic qualties (tangibility, cognitivity, etc) rather than energy (aware-ized or not).

 

"So, you are suggesting (speed zero) that there are things that do not move ( I think)? One of the basic properties of consciousness, as I understand it, is that consciousness never stops. //(joe)

 

"1. Let us take an example from ordinary experience; the flavor 'sweet'. Does sweetness move? Does sweetness stop moving?" (Craig)

This sounds like the unchanging perfect Platonic Form of sweetness. Is that right? 

To me, the Platonic idea of Forms is more of a bloodless, information-theoretic sense of qualia. To me, sweetness need not be any other thing than what it is. Sweetness is exactly what it tastes like. That quality is the irreducible thing. It's not a local representation of a divine Ur-sweetness, it's just an element of certain modes of experience.

 

"To me, these questions are rhetorical illustrations of why the property of movement should not presumed to be a condition to apply to consciousness in general." (Craig)

The implication, to me, being that you understand the nature of perception, where no one else even claims to (that I am conscious of anyhow : )

Maybe. Mainly I'm saying that there is nothing to understand. The nature of perception is nearly self-evident, we have only to restrain ourselves from projecting our favorite expectations onto it. 

"Moving is a perceptual change that is specific to the sense of touch (tangibility) and sight (visibility). It doesn't make sense to say that a flavor, odor, sound, or idea is literally 'moving' other than when it happens to be associated with an inner sensation of 'motion-like' qualities." (Craig)

Well, thanks for brining up "sound". If you want to have a missive talk about that, and its relation to consciousness (I love the backstabbing quality of that word, "missive", recently used to refer to one of my posts), I would begin with the writings of >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Zuckerkandl< a tutor at my alma mater,  where he, "joined the faculty at St. John's College, Annapolis in 1948. He remained at St. John's, teaching music as part of their Great Books program, until his retirement in 1964." 

Read  here: >https://www.scribd.com/document/276871697/Sound-and-Symbol-Victor-Zuckerkandl-pdf<,  the table of contents will give you a feel. Your comments about his book would be quite welcome. There is also "Man The Musician", if you want to talk about sound and movement.  

Sounds like a different conversation, but ok, I'll have a look :)

 

"We may find music emotionally 'moving', or feel that the sound is moving closer to one ear or another, however this I would say is part of our complex human awareness rather than a fundamental understanding of what movement is and what it can apply to. Action is a feature of certain experiences, and perhaps all of our personal experiences are subject to an overall 'action' of autobiographical progress in aging, but that does not mean that consciousness 'never stops'. To the contrary, any experience of change is necessarily dependent upon the stability of whatever sense modality is containing the changing qualities." (Craig)

Well, yes, and Victor also talks about that. But, contrary to your claim, 'any experience of change is necessarily dependent upon the stability of whatever sense modality is containing the changing qualities", the identity of sweetness, for example, is not dependent on stability.

I'm saying that sweetness is dependent upon the stability of the sense of taste. The memory of sweetness is dependent upon the stability of memory to access past perceptions. Some phenomenon is continuously present to detect the transient coming and going of sweetness.

 

Identity will constantly seek stability, but stability is impossible, since no identity can exist without action. What even any living biological state is ever stagnant? 

It seems to me that even biology reflects stability as much as mobility. Anything that moves in one frame of reference is the one thing that isn't moving in its own frame of reference. The cell is stable compared to ions moving in and out of the cell membrane. The ions are stable relative to fluctuating charges and fields.

 

//Since all matter (where matter is concentrated energy), and energy, are composed of consciousness, no matter or energy ever stops moving. I have read that at the temp of absolute zero, things still move."//

"2. Matter is not concentrated energy. This is a misunderstanding of Einsteinian mass-energy equivalence." (Craig) 

I have also done the research Craig. There is no uniformly universally accepted interpretation of that equation. 

I do think that the m is uinversally accepted as referring to mass, not matter. Mass and energy are both properties of matter or physical systems. Matter can be heavy or moving fast, but heaviness or slowness doesn't give rise to matter.

 

" I'm not a physicist, but I have taken an interest in this particular topic because it comes up so often in metaphysics. (see my post https://multisenserealism.com/2016/09/07/everything-is-not-energy/) Energy is measured in terms such as calorie, kilowatt hour, or joule. It is an invisible, intangible abstraction which is conserved *within calculations of physical theory* but should not be confused with an immaterial substance which can be materialized by changing its density. Energy can no more be 'aware-ized' than 'capital gains' can be industrialized. I propose a sensory-motive primitive instead; Aesthetic-participatory phenomena which are divided or diffracted in some sense but retain eternal unity in another. I propose the means by which this diffraction is produced is with the introduction of various qualities and degrees of insensitivity (anesthetic masking of aesthetic phenomena to make the participatory aspect indirect)." (Craig)

I can make comments here, later, or at the web site 9this post is getting missive : ). But clearly, you have your own ideas of what energy actually is, and what energy is is what is not agreed upon by anyone, as far as I understand. 

It's precisely because nobody can agree about what energy is that it bothers me to base a metaphysical proposition on it. Energy is a kind of unfalsifiable catch-all for 'stuffless-stuff that does everthing'. Looking around I see no 'energy'. I see shapes and colors, I hear sounds, I feel sensations, think thoughts, etc, but I don't see a necessity to posit a medium behind those phenomena which is not awareness.

 

"Through a series of dilemmas. The first dilemma is that between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so. This is, as I just posted to Siegfried, how the One became many. This dilemma resulted in what is called action, and from action's own working upon itself, we see that an identity is formed (with no identity, and we have had a recent discussion on this, there is nothing). So, you see, action and identity are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure (and explained following, why all energy is aware-ized)." (Joe)

"It sounds like the idea is to explain the addition of 'aware' to 'energy' using terms such as 'desire' which must be seen as senseless in the absence of awareness. (Craig)

I refer to my sense of "desire" by quoting, "Desire is the womb from which all things have their birth or beginning". It is also a reflection of 18th century German Idealism. You have a fair point, but my sense of desire, reflected in the quote here, is a propensity of energy, a quality of energy itself, not a quality of awareness. [Sometimes, unfortunately, words are not the best form of communication] 

A perfectly valid place to start in the 18th century, but I think it's an obstruction now in the 21st. It makes no sense to me to say that desire is a quality of something which has no awareness. If we want to use the term energy, I think we have to use the physical properties which define it, and those are limited to force, distance, and time. There's no mechanical role for 'desire' to play. If we give force a quality of desire, then that is the 'aware-izing' of energy already...and if we are doing that, we might as well go the extra step and ask why we need 'force' at all. Why not give desire the property of producing tangible resistance, or more precisely, the quality of resistance when experienced in the aesthetically limited mode of tangibility?

 

'It's tautological to say that energy becomes a desire by desiring to manifest itself." (Craig) 

I agree, given the sense of "desire" you hold. 

(thumbs up)

 

"I don't think it has any explanatory power, and it seems to me a wish to substantiate traditional teachings." (Craig)

By "it", do you mean "desire"? 

I mean the proposition that desire is how energy manifests awareness.

 

"I don't see it as helpful to say that action is a part of all structure." (Craig)

because ultimately, you create everything you perceive. Consciousness creates all form. Form, a senseory-motive primitive, as you suggest above, does not create consciousness, as I see it, of course. 

I don't think I create everything I perceive. I think that I contribute, but ultimately perception creates everything, even me. Form is a sensory-motive object...a reflection of the primitive, but not the primitive itself. The primitive transcends form and function (but includes it also).

 

"What action belongs to the structure of a square?" (Craig)

"Square" represents an idea in your mind, a dynamic active thought.

Thinking about the square is dynamic, but the square that I think of is always qualified by the same unchanging sense of squareness.

 

The structure of a square, the thought itself, is con-structed.

If that were true, then I should be able to construct new colors of the spectrum, or new modes of sensation, but I can't. I think I access a transpersonal or impersonal experience personally, but I do not create it by myself.

 

If you close your eyes, and think about your memory of a square, and look at the images that flit across the back of your eyelids, you will see (at least that has been my experience) your memory of a square, and it will appear like a kaleidoscopic image, shifting, moving, changing. That is a dynamic moving image of your thought. 

I can imagine a square even without closing my eyes. While I can't maintain access to that image constantly, and it may alter slightly after some number of times recalling it, the squareness of it is not dyamic. Every square that I imagine is exactly as square as every other square I've ever seen or imagined.

 

Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action involves change, and any change seems to threaten identity. It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent on stability (you are still you, even though you constantly change). Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is the second dilemma.

"This seems to me to be a logical fallacy. The premise is that we constantly change, therefore identity cannot depend on stability. (Craig)

That's actually not quite what I said. I am not saying identity cannot depend on stability because we change. Identity does not depend on stability because that is the nature of identity.

I'm saying that identity is an abstraction. The actual phenomenon is a quale, and it is stable. Square doesn't become more or less square, but square is not an 'identity' it is a visible or tactile-tangible quality. Square is either a shape that is touched-felt, or seen-looked, but it is not heard, smelled, tasted, expressed emotionally, etc.

 

Identity may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purpose of discussion, the terms "action" and "identity"  must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action  upon itself -and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed. 

The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated, and so does not fit within the framework of your logical analysis (following)  Identity is action's effect on itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. This applies from the very simple to the most complex.

I think this really goes off into pure speculation. I don't think that identity and action need to be united (pretty clearly they don't since we have separate terms which we can use without conflating them), and I don't think that identity and action are independent of sense. Identity is a kind of abstracted-objectified notion of quale (I call sensory affect), and action is an abstracted-objectified version of what I call 'motive effect' (the participatory variety of sensory-affect).

 

"I think this bit of modus ponens thinking can just as fruitfully be reversed. In the modus tollens version, we can begin from the premise that in some sense our identity never changes." (Craig)

"The name which we are born with in some sense refers to a person who remains constant from birth to death. Birth and death are boundary conditions of our personal experience, but that experience is presented directly as a continuous, stable narrative. We can look at this narrative experience as the ontological, 'real' phenomenon without attaching it to an abstract label of 'identity'. Our life is us. It changes its contents but the top level structure does not act, it is simply present...until it isn't." (Craig)

I am happy to hear your views, and they are well stated.  I just happen to think that I am not my body, I am my soul, form reasons I would be happy to discuss.  My body, as you say, "Our life is us' is something your soul has. it is not who you are. 

I'm saying that our life and our soul is the same thing. I am a lifetime. The self or soul is a kind of reflection of {the path from eternity through this lifetime through this moment} within each moment.

 

And I am glad you had the opportunity to express your ideas here. 

Thanks Joe,

and you as well!

 

Thanks Craig : )

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/d0d569a4-7e6d-47dd-b8c0-8ba484d1700d%40googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Vasavada, Kashyap >”Special theory of relativity (SR) has been verified by innumerable experiments. In fact the whole fields of Nuclear and High Energy Physics have come up during the last 80 years or so, strongly verifying SR every day in the labs!”

As per my reply to Paul Werbos, I do not accept relativity’s conflation of time as a dimension of space-time. I just don’t. This assumption is as integral to my line of thinking as is the invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to the Lorentz transformations.

Given your confidence in the established evidence, what’s your take on some of the refutations of relativity theory that occasionally crop up? For example, http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

sj

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/73d55de18ba04108800e4a7ab90269f8%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Paul Werbos >” But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations.”

Good, I’m perfectly fine with that – it provides a necessary common ground that we all agree on. It was an important objective of Einstein’s to try to reconcile electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations. My concern is the possibility that the properties of the speed of light relate to QM phenomena rather than relativistic. I have my reasons, but to place it in a nutshell, I suspect that the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time might be a serious category error.

What is time? It is a measure of the progression of events. A ticking clock is one of the means of measuring that progression of events. To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which you can, in theory, relocate to, does not sit well with my instincts. Once a progression of events has run its course, that's it... you can replicate the method and the formula, but not the moment or the self in that moment.

All this increasing contemporary talk about going backwards and forwards in time, or a future impacting on a present, is making me feel queasy… I don’t buy it. For example, in the quantum eraser experiment, they make reference to a photon’s behavior that is contingent on an event that has not yet taken place yet… a future event impacting on a present moment… again, I just don’t buy it… I wonder if there is a QM explanation that might better account for these apparent paradoxes.

sj

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Multisense Realism]

Hi Serge,

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:41 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on July 10, 2017 wrote:

>I have had this conversation before with Joe McCard, and 

>while we both agree on some general principles about the 

>absolute primacy of consciousness, we disagree on the 

>details which he mentions here

.

[S.P.] In your 2013 jcs-online post you wrote: 

"Progressions are nothing but a sense of progress. Time and space are nothing but a sense of experienced sequence and division. It's all sense. Sense is the capacity to experience and project experience, which is sensory-motive presence." (for details, see the attached html file).

.

So, I would like to know whether your views were not changed since then (my reply to your ideas is in another html file attached below).

I don't think that my views have changed as far as I can tell from that discussion. My response would have been the same then (Did I not respond? It's kind of hard for me to use this email-threaded system...I delete most emails.

[S.P.] As to me, I make a difference between "sensing" as a physical or physiologic process of dealing with physical signals, and "making sense" as a mental process.

I make three distinctions there rather than two.

You're saying

1. Physical signals
2. Semantic interpretation

I'm saying

1. Sensation (visible, tactile presentations)
2. Perception (images, shape presentations = sensation of sensation)
3. Thought (geometry, language = perception of perception)

There are no physical 'signals'. Physical events consist of tangible structures in public space changing positions relative to each other. Nothing is signaled, there are only unexperienced physical forces and fields operating mechanically according to mathematical principles.

 

If some sequence is experienced, it means that it has made sense for the given subject of cognitive activity at some moment in the past. If we now have "a sense of experienced sequence", it is nothing but "making sense (now) of making sense (in the past)", and it takes place due to the cyclical character of the process of cognition. Therefore, time, as some measure of changes, is indeed a subjective construct, whereas the very changes are objective, or absolute. 

I think the only thing that can change is sense. Sense (and its multiplied/divided/diffracted/reunited nestings) is the absolute but it is trans-jective rather than objective or subjective.

.
We perceive cyclical processes in the world because the very process of cognition is a cyclical process itself. The interaction of these two cyclical processes begets the very conception of "time". The cyclicality of the process of cognition makes possible the existence of a phenomenon of "inner clock", or "inner feeling of time-flow".

Agree that cognition has a cyclical quality, however the sense of an inner clock is easy to dissolve. We need external devices to use as clocks to conjure up some sense of cyclical continuity, but mostly we are just giving our memories a sequence that makes sense with consensus memories and evidence.

 

.
As to the concept of space, or better say, of "empty space", there are many misunderstandings as well. For example, if a space hosts some objects, then it should not reduce in size. Say, if a room is of 50 cubic meters, then it will stay of the same volume despite of the fact that it can become filled up with furniture from a floor to a ceiling. However, if the new furniture occupies too much space, we say that there is no more space in our room. In other words, the space disappears. So, the question is a valid one: is there still a space in case there is no space in the room? Or, in other words, if the object occupies some space, does it mean that the correspondent amount of space disappears? If the space does not disappear, then it is something absolute.

I think that there is no absolute space. Our concept of space is a purely intellectual construct which actually refers to the capacity of our own imagination to generalize the qualities of length and distance between surfaces. Think of space as di-stance, where the 'stance' is a tangible or visible foreground shape against an intangible, invisible background.

Thanks,

Craig

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy 

---

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?

Against my better judgment I will chime in on this thread. I have had this conversation before with Joe McCard, and while we both agree on some general principles about the absolute primacy of consciousness, we disagree on the details which he mentions here, namely:

1. The incorrigibility of 'action'.

2. The conception of consciousness as 'aware-ized energy'.

3. The ontological status of 'identity'.

//On Jul 9, 2017 7:55 PM, "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

"So, you are suggesting (speed zero) that there are things that do not move ( I think)? One of the basic properties of consciousness, as I understand it, is that consciousness never stops. //

 

1. Let us take an example from ordinary experience; the flavor 'sweet'. Does sweetness move? Does sweetness stop moving? To me, these questions are rhetorical illustrations of why the property of movement should not presumed to be a condition to apply to consciousness in general. Moving is a perceptual change that is specific to the sense of touch (tangibility) and sight (visibility). It doesn't make sense to say that a flavor, odor, sound, or idea is literally 'moving' other than when it happens to be associated with an inner sensation of 'motion-like' qualities. We may find music emotionally 'moving', or feel that the sound is moving closer to one ear or another, however this I would say is part of our complex human awareness rather than a fundamental understanding of what movement is and what it can apply to. Action is a feature of certain experiences, and perhaps all of our personal experiences are subject to an overall 'action' of autobiographical progress in aging, but that does not mean that consciousness 'never stops'. To the contrary, any experience of change is necessarily dependent upon the stability of whatever sense modality is containing the changing qualities.

//Since all matter (where matter is concentrated energy), and energy, are composed of consciousness, no matter or energy ever stops moving. I have read that at the temp of absolute zero, things still move."//

2. Matter is not concentrated energy. This is a misunderstanding of Einsteinian mass-energy equivalence. I'm not a physicist, but I have taken an interest in this particular topic because it comes up so often in metaphysics. (see my post https://multisenserealism.com/2016/09/07/everything-is-not-energy/) Energy is measured in terms such as calorie, kilowatt hour, or joule. It is an invisible, intangible abstraction which is conserved *within calculations of physical theory* but should not be confused with an immaterial substance which can be materialized by changing its density. Energy can no more be 'aware-ized' than 'capital gains' can be industrialized. I propose a sensory-motive primitive instead; Aesthetic-participatory phenomena which are divided or diffracted in some sense but retain eternal unity in another. I propose the means by which this diffraction is produced is with the introduction of various qualities and degrees of insensitivity (anesthetic masking of aesthetic phenomena to make the participatory aspect indirect).

(Joe)

Through a series of dilemmas. The first dilemma is that between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so. This is, as I just posted to Siegfried, how the One became many. This dilemma resulted in what is called action, and from action's own working upon itself, we see that an identity is formed (with no identity, and we have had a recent discussion on this, there is nothing). So, you see, action and identity are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure (and explained following, why all energy is aware-ized).

It sounds like the idea is to explain the addition of 'aware' to 'energy' using terms such as 'desire' which must be seen as senseless in the absence of awareness. It's tautological to say that energy becomes a desire by desiring to manifest itself. I don't think it has any explanatory power, and it seems to me a wish to substantiate traditional teachings. I don't see it as helpful to say that action is a part of all structure. What action belongs to the structure of a square?

Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action involves change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent on stability (you are still you, even though you constantly change). Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is the second dilemma.

This seems to me to be a logical fallacy. The premise is that we constantly change, therefore identity cannot depend on stability. I think this bit of modus ponens thinking can just as fruitfully be reversed. In the modus tollens version, we can begin from the premise that in some sense our identity never changes. The name which we are born with in some sense refers to a person who remains constant from birth to death. Birth and death are boundary conditions of our personal experience, but that experience is presented directly as a continuous, stable narrative. We can look at this narrative experience as the ontological, 'real' phenomenon without attaching it to an abstract label of 'identity'. Our life is us. It changes its contents but the top level structure does not act, it is simply present...until it isn't.

Thanks,

Carry on...

Craig

-- 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1947447670.2830409.1499719270850%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Paul Werbos>” No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period.”

The following article is of a very different opinion. The controversy is clearly far from settled. From Nature 547, 156–158 (13 July 2017) doi:10.1038/547156a:
http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20170711

Sixty years ago, physicists congregated to discuss gravity in a seminal conference at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Richard Feynman proposed a thought experiment to analyse a deep problem: the incompatibility of quantum theory and general relativity. We think that his argument needs revisiting
[...]
A starting point would be a focused meeting bringing together the quantum- and gravity-physics communities, as well as theorists and experimentalists. Perhaps it is time for a second Chapel Hill conference.

 

sj

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Werbos
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:25 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

 

 

On Jul 11, 2017 11:45 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjar...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

Hi, Stephen!

Since I only have a few minutes for email now, I will focus on one of your key points,

Oere is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations.”

Good, I’m perfectly fine with that – it provides a necessary common ground that we all agree on. It was an important objective of Einstein’s to try to reconcile electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations. My concern is the possibility that the properties of the speed of light relate to QM phenomena rather than relativistic. I

Actually, Lorentz did that. But serious physics recognizes that old forms of QM are totally superseded by KQED (canonical Copenhagen QED) and by other relativistic theories which build up from KQED  in various ways.

There is no CHOICE between quantum field theory and special relativity here, and issues like FTL hinge on the COMBINATION of things one assumes. The issues is more seriously WHICH relativistic dynamics and Which relativistic measurement formalism one assumes. KQED predicts no FTL or backwards time communication of information. Some folks find that this violates their intuition, but JSBELL in his classic book Speakable.. explains that property of KQED.

I disagree with KQED on that, but Lorentz invariance is not the way to do FTL.

The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

 

 

Again, flat out false.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/005601d2fa8f%24371ab450%24a5501cf0%24%40net.au.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Serge Patlavskiy >”How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense in your words."”

And this works in both directions. Going in reverse, how can one hope to develop a more complete model if one insists on retaining the flawed assumptions of the existing mainstream interpretation?

Time is the subjective meaning that we attribute to the progression of events. A whale, or a 400-year-old tortoise, will perceive that passage of events very differently to you and me, and very differently again to a mosquito or a fly. The rapid whack of a fly-swatter that I observe passes very slowly for the fly that is about to be swatted, and they have ample warning to get out of the way. While we are on the topic of the perception of time, here is an excerpt that is relevant. Doug Yanega is an entomologist who has been studying insects for 20 years. In response to a question querying the difference in the lifetimes of a fly versus a human, he provided the following reply:

Not that hard - a typical house fly is about 8mm long, a typical person about 1600, so it's roughly 200 times in length. Volume is roughly that cubed.
    The least-appreciated difference between a fly and a human is the perception of time. One's perception of time can be best imagined by asking how short an event needs to be before we can no longer tell it's happened. Think of it as a matter of the "shortest unit of time we can perceive". If you use that as a standard of reference, then any attempts we make to measure things should be thought of as adding together short units of time. An important example is watching a TV or computer monitor - we see a continuous image, when in reality there is a dot scanning across and down the screen VERY quickly. Flies could not watch TV, because they do (and experiments have proven this) perceive MUCH shorter time intervals than we do - a nervous impulse doesn't have to travel very far in a fly - so to a fly a TV *is* a dot scanning across and down the screen. Fluorescent lights, to a fly, are pulsing strobes, and not a steady source of illumination. Research on "flicker fusion" indicate that flies only lose discrimination at 200-300 Hz, where humans barely exceed 50 Hz. So, flies can detect things that are approximately 1/5th as long as the shortest units of time *we* can detect.
    The consequence, if you accept the premise and take the thought experiment to its logical conclusion, is that a fly presumably sees OUR world as happening in slow motion - ostensibly, at 1/5th the speed we perceive it (so everything takes 5 times longer to happen). When you try to swat a fly, it sees you coming and has plenty of "units of time" to dodge, by its standards, even though it seems fast to *us*. That means that a day might be a very long time to a fly (5 days), and that its life, which to us is very short, may seem quite long to the fly living it - a week would seem like more than a month.

(Expert Archive Questions - Entemology (Study of bugs): http://experts.about.com/q/Entomology-Study-Bugs-665/Fly-size-VS-Human.htm. As on November 2, 2006.)

 

Central to Yanega's explanation is an implied appreciation of the mind-body relationship, and the role of the body in apprehending the events (including the progression of events to which we attribute the meaning of time) that are experienced, which in turn "wire" the neuroplastic brain. Relativity theory just clouds the issue.

This brings us to quantum physics and the realm of the very small. The passage of time (and space) is encountered very differently again at the level of the quantum. If we perceive the legs of an insect as long and delicate, compared to our own, then we can imagine what this might imply at even tinier levels (string theory?). Is relativity theory assisting us in understanding any of this? I don’t think so. It’s just getting in the way.

sj

 

From: Serge Patlavskiy [mailto:serge.pa...@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:49 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

-

Stephen Jarosek <sjar...@iinet.net.au> on July 12, 2017 wrote:

>To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of 

>space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which 

>you can, in theory, relocate to, does not sit well with my 

>instincts.

.

[S.P.] In my reply to Avtar Singh on Aug 10, 2016 I wrote: "To formalize physical processes we use the physical models (with physical frames of reference, cause-effect relationships between the event, etc.), while formalizing complex systems, like a living organisms, or galaxies (saying not of Reality as a whole) we should use informational models (with cognitive frames of reference, and inverse relationships between the elements). The concepts of space and time lose their meaning while applying informational models."

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post_10-08-2016.txt.

.

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

> What is time? ... All this increasing contemporary talk about 

>going backwards and forwards in time, or a future impacting 

>on a present, is making me feel queasy… I don’t buy it.

.

[S.P.] In my reply to Stanley Klein on July 6, 2017 I wrote: "To the point, there is no such a material entity as "time". If anything exists, it must exist necessarily simultaneously with other existent events, processes, and things despite of the distance between them, otherwise the integrity of Reality as a whole complex system will be disturbed and destroyed. So, the very discussion of the problem of retro-causality is senseless and futile, ... unless we assume the existence of parallel realities, of course."

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post2_6-07-2017.txt.

.

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

>I wonder if there is a QM explanation that might better account

> for these apparent paradoxes.

.

[S.P.] In my reply to Uziel Awret on July 7, 2017 I wrote: "So, can anybody suppose (or assume as an improbable possibility, or as a horrible nightmare) that there can be an explanation to the above facts which would not be based on quantum mechanics?"

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post_7-07-2017.txt.

.

To the point, in my reply to you on Aug 1, 2016 I wrote: "So, what's your "paradigm" -- your set of axiomatic assertions? Where is your "sufficiently complete" model of how the DNA works? How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense in your words."

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post_1-08-2016.txt.

.

Kind regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

 

 

---

From: Stephen Jarosek <sjar...@iinet.net.au>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Stephen Jarosek <sjar...@iinet.net.au> on July 12, 2017 wrote:

>To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of 

>space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which 

>you can, in theory, relocate to, does not sit well with my 

>instincts.

.

[S.P.] In my reply to Avtar Singh on Aug 10, 2016 I wrote: "To formalize physical processes we use the physical models (with physical frames of reference, cause-effect relationships between the event, etc.), while formalizing complex systems, like a living organisms, or galaxies (saying not of Reality as a whole) we should use informational models (with cognitive frames of reference, and inverse relationships between the elements). The concepts of space and time lose their meaning while applying informational models."

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post_10-08-2016.txt.

.

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

> What is time? ... All this increasing contemporary talk about 

>going backwards and forwards in time, or a future impacting 

>on a present, is making me feel queasy… I don’t buy it.

.

[S.P.] In my reply to Stanley Klein on July 6, 2017 I wrote: "To the point, there is no such a material entity as "time". If anything exists, it must exist necessarily simultaneously with other existent events, processes, and things despite of the distance between them, otherwise the integrity of Reality as a whole complex system will be disturbed and destroyed. So, the very discussion of the problem of retro-causality is senseless and futile, ... unless we assume the existence of parallel realities, of course."

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post2_6-07-2017.txt.

.

[Stephen Jarosek] wrote:

>I wonder if there is a QM explanation that might better account

> for these apparent paradoxes.

.

[S.P.] In my reply to Uziel Awret on July 7, 2017 I wrote: "So, can anybody suppose (or assume as an improbable possibility, or as a horrible nightmare) that there can be an explanation to the above facts which would not be based on quantum mechanics?"

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post_7-07-2017.txt.

.

To the point, in my reply to you on Aug 1, 2016 I wrote: "So, what's your "paradigm" -- your set of axiomatic assertions? Where is your "sufficiently complete" model of how the DNA works? How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense in your words."

.

In case you have missed my post, I attach it below as Sadhu_Sanga-post_1-08-2016.txt.

.

Kind regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Stephen Jarosek <sjar...@iinet.net.au>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:41 AM

Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

[Stephen Jarosek]

Paul and Kashyap, further to the distinction between special relativity and general relativity to which both of you draw attention… If general relativity was built on the assumptions of special relativity as a given, it follows that a problem with general relativity suggests that the assumptions of special relativity should also be revisited. I cannot accept that problems with one can occur in isolation of the other, as they are both based on self-consistent assumptions.

sj

 

From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjar...@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:07 AM
To: 'Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

Paul Werbos>” No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period.”

The following article is of a very different opinion. The controversy is clearly far from settled. From Nature 547, 156–158 (13 July 2017) doi:10.1038/547156a:
http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20170711

Sixty years ago, physicists congregated to discuss gravity in a seminal conference at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Richard Feynman proposed a thought experiment to analyse a deep problem: the incompatibility of quantum theory and general relativity. We think that his argument needs revisiting
[...]
A starting point would be a focused meeting bringing together the quantum- and gravity-physics communities, as well as theorists and experimentalists. Perhaps it is time for a second Chapel Hill conference.

 

sj

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Werbos

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:25 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com

--

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Stephen,

The time dimension plays a different role in relativity than the three spatial dimensions do. There is no danger of fully assimilating time with space; the Lorentz equations tell only of one way -- by no means the only way -- in which time and space are related. You are perfectly correct in what you say about time being a progression of events, and the actual events cannot be changed after they have taken place.

Peter Nyikos

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Stephen Jarosek [sjar...@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:46 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MaybeSpam]RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

Paul Werbos >” But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations.

”

Good, I’m perfectly fine with that – it provides a necessary common ground that we all agree on. It was an important objective of Einstein’s to try to reconcile electromagnetism with the Lorentz transformations. My concern is the possibility that the properties of the speed of light relate to QM phenomena rather than relativistic. I have my reasons, but to place it in a nutshell, I suspect that the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time might be a serious category error.

What is time? It is a measure of the progression of events. A ticking clock is one of the means of measuring that progression of events. To conflate this progression of events as a dimension of space-time in which coordinates can be set, and to which you can, in theory, relocate to, does not sit well with my instincts. Once a progression of events has run its course, that's it... you can replicate the method and the formula, but not the moment or the self in that moment.

All this increasing contemporary talk about going backwards and forwards in time, or a future impacting on a present, is making me feel queasy… I don’t buy it. For example, in the quantum eraser experiment, they make reference to a photon’s behavior that is contingent on an event that has not yet taken place yet… a future event impacting on a present moment… again, I just don’t buy it… I wonder if there is a QM explanation that might better account for these apparent paradoxes.

sj

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Werbos
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:25 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

 

 

On Jul 11, 2017 11:45 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjar...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

. However, you do accept many of relativity theory’s premises, which I do not. Relativity theory (SGR – special/general relativity) is a dead weight,

As a born heretic, I too was much offended by popular, literary and philosophical stores about special relativity -- until I learned the modern proper formulation, in variance under proper Lorentz transformation, and Einstein-style vision of a cosmos full of fields and energy but no magical point particles. All aspects of physics are properly challenged regularly and intensely, but at the moment there are many aspects physics FAR less tested and certain, and promising for serious scientific challenge, than special relativity. Even general relativity has held up quite well despite very intense (and laudable) questioning; arxiv.org has reviews posted.

Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (c).

That is what you read in the popular press. And who knows, from the viewpoint of literary criticism you might find statements by Einstein to that effect. (Most serious physicists would not know or care about offhand statements.) But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper Lorentz transformations.

 

From the mathematics of qualitative properties of PDE, we know that information cannot propagate faster than light if we solve PDE in forwards time, if the PDE obey special relativity and if the PDE possess a special property called "quasilinearity." (Probably Google would point you to the huge literature on this topic.) But these are big "ifs"!!! In fact, MQED complies with special relativity just as much as the canonical version of QED does, and it does predict that we could send real informative signals back through time, just as we send Morse code along a telegraph or even photographic images.

 

If you Google "tachyons," you will see another mechanism by which ftl communication is logically consistent with special relativity.. though no experiments have been done yet which support either tachyons or ftl, at least not convincingly. 

 

 

But this conflicts with QM, where some manner of information transfer has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and purposes, instantaneous (though not in the context of communication – no communication theorem applies).

No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period. The mainstream confusion about relativity versus QM is all about gravity, about the extension to general relativity. Since most of physics is not about gravity, that conflict us doing nothing at all, in my view, to retard the advance of knowledge. Most physicists would agree with that much, but I view the true situation as even stronger. Under local realism of the Einstein type (getting rid of the extraneous assumptions he used in predicting EPR), unifying the rest with general relativity is mathematically trivial, and there is no empirical evidence that the simplest unification  (due to folks like Wheeler and Carmelli) is inexact.

 

 

 

The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

 

 

Again, flat out false.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

[Siegfried Bleher]

Dear Stephen,

 

There is no conflict between SR and QM and no controversy from the perspective of physics as practiced today.  There is, however, a lack of agreement between GR and QM or, rather, they don’t ‘mesh’ under conditions that require both to apply or, more simply, neither can make sensible predictions in such conditions.  The fact that GR evolves from SR does not imply that GR should either agree with QM or be incorrect—the ‘disagreement’ arises in regimes of size and mass where SR is no longer adequate (and GR is required), and QM is also required. 

 

Time as felt subjectively (by us or by flies) has little relationship to the time standards used in physics (e.g. the time related to the frequency difference between two energy levels of an atom), or to time as it appears in equations of physics.  In turn, questions of time symmetric QM, faster than light communication or FTL ‘connection’ are addressable from those equations (or modified versions), without relying on intuitive notions of time.  Now, having said this, I agree that intuitive notions of time, or perhaps experiences of timelessness or no-time may inspire new insights into wider applicability of existing equations, or modified equations with wider applicability.  And, along the lines of inquiry of this forum, new insights into the relationship between science and spirit.

 

Given the success of SR, QED, GR, Standard Model, etc., in their domains of applicability, any new insights would likely occur outside their individual domains of applicability.  A nice interactive graphic has been provided by Quanta Magazine for the current “Theories of Everything” in physics: https://www.quantamagazine.org/frontier-of-physics-interactive-map-20150803

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Jarosek

Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:07 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/003501d2faee%24413c7f90%24c3b57eb0%24%40net.au.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Hi Siegfried

>”There is no conflict between SR and QM and no controversy from the perspective of physics as practiced today.”

Are collisions between particles travelling at near-light speed (0.999999991c), in the Large Hadron Collider, consistent with    [E=mc2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]?
That is, as the particles approach light speed, does the energy of collision between the two particles tend to 2X infinity (minus efficiency losses of course)? What other near-light-speed experimental evidence is there, coming from the LHC (or other platform) to support SR? In simple terms that an engineer can understand.

Cheers,
sj

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/DM2PR12MB0045FF8F1E3F0089C7B60AEAA2AF0%40DM2PR12MB0045.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.

[Siegfried Bleher]

Hello Stephen,

 

The speed you quote, 0.999999991c, gives a Lorentz factor of 7450.   Since the rest mass (mc^2) of a proton is 938.3 MeV (i.e. 0.9383 GeV), the corresponding energy of a proton in a proton beam moving at that speed is 7450x0.9383 GeV = 6990 GeV, or 6.99 TeV.  And that is about the design limit per proton beam for the LHC.   The tremendous expense and engineering involved in designing and constructing the LHC is to get protons to move that fast, so they each carry up to 7 TeV of energy.

 

Another common example for SR is the time dilation of muons that are created in the atmosphere from collisions of cosmic rays with particles in the atmosphere.  Muons are unstable, each decaying into an electron, and anti-electron neutrino and a muon neutrino.  Each muon decays over a range of times, but they have a ‘typical’ lifetime of about 2.2 microseconds when they are at rest.  We can predict, based on this lifetime, how many muons created in the upper atmosphere to expect would reach the ground before decaying, and knowing how fast they are moving (about 0.98c).  We find (experimentally) a larger portion of muons reach the ground before decaying, the difference implying they have a longer lifespan than muons at rest, in good agreement with the equation for time dilation, t’ = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

 

Is that along the lines of what you were asking for?

.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000601d2fb3b%247be76450%2473b62cf0%24%40net.au.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Forrest N]

Paul Werbos,

As to your last e-mail  to Stephan (category: Sandu Sanga)

Subject:  your quote "The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right."

Both are wrong: Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Special Relativity is conceptually wrong as it denies the existence of background field. In today's physics there are at least 3 "known" background fields. The Zero-Point -Field (ZPF), the Higgs field, and dark matter, dark energy, as well as many more hypothesized fields. The Zero-Point-Field has been experimentally proven by experimentalists all over the world. The Higg's field is probably BS concerning it being a field, but that's an aside.  Non-baryonic Dark Matter is part of the current Lambda CDM model. It too is BS, as well as dark energy. Both the Higgs and Dark Energy
experimentalists have been given the Noble Prize as you know, even though IMO both are BS.

Concerning Special Relativity there would be a background field(s) as a reference frame for momentum and relative motion. For most purposes the center of gravity in a particular location as a good reference frame. The conclusion would be that Lorenz Transforms and

are more relevant to reality than Special Relativity which asserts that there is no background field to use as a reference frame for motion.

Concerning General Relativity (GR), it has the best equations available to calculate gravitational motions and forces at stellar distances, but fails at galactic scales without the inclusion of vast quantities of an unknown, dark matter. This is just one problem with GR. The main problem is that it proposes warped space. Warped space has not been experimentally or observationally shown to be valid. At the scale of the observable universe space appears to be totally flat. If warped space is an invalid concept then what would be the basis for the Ricci Tensor of GR (tensors which can bend motion) concerning calculations? Instead density and pressure differentials in a background  could result in the same equations.

Concerning Quantum Mechanics: Quantum Mechanics(s) is a system of equations, statistics, probability equations, and custom made theoretical physics developed over more than 70 years of its existence. Mathematics alone is not a theory. The basis for existence must be explained other than stating that its all is ad hoc, based solely upon a history of surprising observations. For this reason there have been  at least a dozen related hypotheses developed for this purpose. There collectively are called quantum theory, there purpose being the validation of Quantum Mechanics. A list of the most well-know ones follow:

The Copenhagen Interpretation is probably the most well-known of these.

The Many Worlds Interpretation has been advancing in popularity in recent times.

The Bohmian Interpretation also called the De Broglie and Pilot Wave interpretation.

The Changing of Rules Theories, the most prominent of which is The Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory

The Decoherence hypothesis

The Consistent History hypothesis

The Everettian interpretation

The non-local hidden variables hypothesis, which refers to Mach's proposals.

The Local Hidden variable hypothesis

as well as many others.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/

The local hidden variables hypothesis is my favorite since it asserts that there is a background field which interacts with particles in experiments resulting in unpredictable results except by the use of probability calculations. Such a field is already known for many scores of years as the Zero-Point Field, but IMO the problem is solely that experimentalists have failed to connect the dots. If this interpretation is valid Quantum Mechanics and theory has little mystery to it.

As to the non-baryonic dark matter hypothesis, it is simply wrong IMO. This is also the case for changing strength of gravity models like MOND.  Instead a flowing background field can explain what has been observed in all venues, more easily and more accurately, with only a fractional input compared to dark matter, that requires that 85.5% of the universe should be dark matter. The dark energy hypothesis is even worse, the Nobel Prize was IMO mistakenly given for its existence. The problem instead IMO is that the Hubble distance formula is wrong, not by a lot up to a redshift of 1.0, but the variation within this range was the basis for the claim of the existence of dark energy. After a redshift of 1.0 distances start veering greatly from predicted distances based upon the Hubble distance-redshift formula.

I, and others, have published papers concerning the non-existence of dark energy whereby I offer another distance calculating formulation that appears to cover all the basis without the existence of dark energy. 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-new-research-study-has-concluded-that-dark-energy-probably-does-not-exist-248981021.html

Concerning dark matter, I have recently written a paper asserting the non-existence of dark matter, that instead what is presently attributed to dark matter can be explained solely by the motions of a background field. All the calculations concerning 17 close-by galaxies including our Milky Way, all calculations assertedly attest to the validity of this alternative to dark matter. This hypothesis requires less than 1/5th the input of an unknown as dark matter yielding much better results with presently no known exceptions to this hypothesis.

I would say the bottom line is that in the last century or so concerning modern physics,  that logic has been lost in the shuffle. I don't blame them. If one can discover equations through phenomenology then go ahead and do it if such equations work, great. The is called the Engineering approach to physics. But eventually we have to reconcile theory with logic, which should not be that difficult once the simplest answers are not discarded out of hand which they often do.  How long will it take for this simplicity of the universe to be realized? Hopefully not centuries. 

best regards Forrest Noble

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/005601d2fa8f%24371ab450%24a5501cf0%24%40net.au.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcKdv6x2Rx3Ok3oc_fkfrvNrbsxi0nSwcetZjmzZ2-Gsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

Hi, Stephen!

To be strictly precise, general relativity and special relativity are different, competing, mutually inconsistent theories. Special relativity presents us a "flat space," a metric tensor gμυ which is constant everywhere without curvature. General relativity predicts variations in the metric tensor (or curvature, depending on how you look at it).  We do not see it as a competition between theories, because we understand that special relativity does not account for gravity, and the formulas we use in special relativity to describe other forces remain meaningful when we change the metric.

Many have questioned general relativity. At arxiv.org, NASAL folks posted a review of huge, systematic efforts to probe that theory for any gaps, and to explore dozens of hoped for competitors. None have survived such scrutiny. If only people studying nuclear stuff were so energetic about questioning THEIR received wisdom! Or even just QED!

Best of luck, Paul

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/003d01d2faf2%2431ee34d0%2495ca9e70%24%40net.au.

[Stephen Jarosek]

Siegfried >”Is that along the lines of what you were asking for?”

Your second example is, because you are connecting theory with actual experimentally observed results. However I am unable to contextualize it in a manner that is compelling to me, as I don’t have a reference base to compare it to, and there are assumptions to review.

But in your first example, you seem to be outlining a theoretically calculated prediction only, not an experimentally observed result. You arrived at a Lorentz factor of 7450, which I accept at face value. This is the 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) of the energy equation, with the implication that kinetic energy of two protons slamming together in the LHC will yield something of the order of 7450 (x 2) times the energy-of-collision than would be expected if SR did not hold true. This is a huge, manifold increase, and I would expect, easily detected. Is this manifold increase in the energy of collision, in fact, what is observed in experiment in the LHC? Or are there practical difficulties with getting two protons (or several) to collide at near-c in opposite directions AND measure their energy fallout with reasonable accuracy? Or is the actual observed fallout from a collision between two high-speed protons just a reflection of the standard kinetic energy model without the Lorentz factor?

Cheers, sj

[BMP]

Dear Serge

Namaste. Thank you for so patiently trying to explain your ideas in this forum. If you care to clarify two related issues in your theory it would be helpful to me.

1. In a previous message of Jun 29th I wrote that we make a natural distinction between the concepts of  Beginning and Nothing. 

"The next thing is that there is a difference between the ideas of Nothing and Beginning. Nothing as Serge said is Nothing. But Beginning implies  something more that mere Nothing. The word 'beginning' implies that there is something to follow. This is not true of the word 'nothing.' When we say 'beginning' we refer to the start of something that already exists and inquire about its origination. In this way Beginning already has implicit within it the presently existing world or anything else we are inquiring about its origin. This implicitness of the concept of Beginning may be called the Nothing of what is presently existing, but it is certainly distinct from pure Nothing which doesn't have anything implicit, including the concept of Beginning, within it."

Furthermore, if the noumenal realm, as you call it, is beyond conscious knowing, then how can you even know whether it is Nothing or not? If your answer is 'by reason of the meaning of beginning' then you are admitting that noumenal reality is knowable by reason. In the first place that is already implicit by the very fact that you are even referring to it - for it is only a postulate of reason that there must be a ground from which phenomena appear.

2. Reason is not information because it has no material or energetic source outside itself - reason is grounded in necessity or we may say pure logic or law as such without empirical reference. Thus it is not dependent on entropy either. How does your system in any way account for the fundamental role of reason?

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

[Asingh2384]

Dear Forrest:

I agree fully with your conclusions, especially – “ …… General Relativity (GR), it has the best equations available to calculate gravitational motions and forces at stellar distances, but fails at galactic scales without the inclusion of vast quantities of an unknown, dark matter. This is just one problem with GR. The main problem is that it proposes warped space. Warped space has not been experimentally or observationally shown to be valid. ….”.

“……. Quantum Mechanics(s) is a system of equations, statistics, probability equations, and custom made theoretical physics developed over more than 70 years of its existence. Mathematics alone is not a theory. The basis for existence must be explained other than stating that its all is ad hoc, based solely upon a history of surprising observations.”

Now regarding SR:

I agree that – “Special Relativity is conceptually wrong as it denies the existence of background field.” However, this deficiency can be removed via the Universal Relativity model (URM) described in my book and papers (attached), which predicts the existence of a Zero Point Field wherein mass/space/time are fully dilated to Zero at V=C. This is a true ZPF, as opposed to the QM ZPF full of non-zero vibrational vacuum energy that is 120 orders of magnitude higher than the observed space vacuum Cosmological Constant or so-called dark energy. The URM also supports your conclusion that – “…Lorenz Transforms are more relevant to reality than Special Relativity which asserts that there is no background field to use as a reference frame for motion.” 

URM is validated against the observed universe behavior as shown in my paper. It also explains inner workings of QM resolving its weirdness, unverifiable or ridiculous interpretations, and paradoxes as explained in my papers. It also explains dark energy, dark matter, uniformity in background radiation, non-locality, and decoherence (via space-time dilation) etc without the need for super-luminous inflation and multiple universes.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

-----Original Message-----
From: Forrest N <panthe...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jul 12, 2017 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

 

 

Again, flat out false.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/005601d2fa8f%24371ab450%24a5501cf0%24%40net.au.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcKdv6x2Rx3Ok3oc_fkfrvNrbsxi0nSwcetZjmzZ2-Gsg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAPYQUrJQnG%2BrN%3DedehV%2BZ7uWBM8kcETi9RJPfFMj87%3D920ymAA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Asingh2384]

Dear Stephen:

 

Please note that I did not use SGR in my book or papers. The Universal Relativity (UR) model uses SR along with the Newtonian Gravity with a new integrated model of spontaneous mass-energy conversion such as observed in particle decay/birth or in wave/particle complimentarity. Hence, your arguments do not apply to the UR model.

 

I do not agree with your statement – “….That nonlocal effects are instantaneous regardless of distance is a huge problem for SGR. That in itself might be enough to kill this SGR monstrosity once and for all…”

My Universal Relativity model predicts non-locality via space-time dilation as V approaches C. So, it is a big but mistaken belief that non-local effects are counter to relativity theory.

 

My model and papers also prove that relativity physics is fundamental to explain inner workings of QM and not vice versa. QM is an incomplete theory for cosmic scale applications regardless of its 100% success in worldly experiments and technology applications. Its predictions of the space vacuum energy being 120 orders of magnitude higher than the observed Cosmological Constant disqualify QM as a universal theory as evidenced via it misses to explain 96% (dark energy, dark matter), of the universe. Also, its unexplained weirdness, quantum gravity, quantum observer paradox, parallel universes etc disqualify as a credible universal theory.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2fa47%24a920d950%24fb628bf0%24%40net.au.

[Jennifer Nielsen]

you might like Lee Smolin's "Time Reborn". I think more along lines of Julian Barbour.

This is getting metaphysical rather than physical, but I think time makes more sense when you consider an "eternity space" in which everything that ever happened (and everything that could happen if you add dimensions) can be seen at a glimpse, and a dynamic evolving flower of worldlines is branching out in all possible futures inside that eternity space. We ride the worldlines through eternity space and cannot see all of eternity space. We see one cross section at a time.

So. There are 2 kinds of time. The worldlines (the progressions of events, measured against other regularly spaced events, shoving forward into the future ala 2nd law) and the spacial arrangements of these events in block time. I do not feel these two conceptions of time are oppositional; it's a false dichotomy. We need to think about multiple kinds of time.


Special and General Relativity and the relativity of inertial frames implies that when the past is past for one set of people it is not necessarily past for another set of people (as long as they are in different inertial frames). We've conducted multiple experiments that confirm relativity (in fact all our GPS devices would have failed if it were not working). Relativity of time is a real thing. This implies the past isn't some universally gone thing; we just can't see it when it's the past in our frame of reference.


We're all limited by our reference frames.

Cheers,
Jenny

---

From: Stephen Jarosek <sjar...@iinet.net.au>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/005601d2fa8f%24371ab450%24a5501cf0%24%40net.au.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

B.M. Puri Maharaja on July 13, 2017 wrote:

> Furthermore, if the noumenal realm, as you call it, is beyond 

>conscious knowing, then how can you even know whether it is 

>Nothing or not? If your answer is 'by reason of the meaning of 

>beginning' then you are admitting that noumenal reality is 

>knowable by reason. In the first place that is already implicit by 

>the very fact that you are even referring to it - for it is only a 

>postulate of reason that there must be a ground from which 

>phenomena appear.

.

[S.P.] If it is "Furthermore", then what was the first question? But, well. I hold that it is not correct asking, what I call, "terminal questions" like "What was in the beginning?", or "What will be at the end?". The immediate reason for this is that we cannot be sure that there indeed was a beginning, and that there indeed will be an end. The next reason is that we draw such categories as "beginning" and "ending" from our everyday experience -- we do not have an experience of dealing with the whole Reality, and therefore, we cannot be sure whether these categories can also be applicable for the whole Reality.

.

Even when we talk about consciousness, we do not start our life with questioning what consciousness is. In fact, after the baby is born, his first question is whether his dad is rich, the second question is whether his mom is good-looking, and only then the question follows "What the hell is that stuff than makes it possible for me to have the model of the outer world?". :-) Personally, I have asked myself this question when I was of two years old -- it was exactly on my two-year birthday. Maybe, it was too late, but, all the same, since then I'm trying to answer it.

.

Second. Before talking about Noumenal Reality we have to practice for second-nature our understanding of the distinction between the intellectual products of four different levels. So, the postulate about objective and consciousness-independent existence of some reality which I call "Noumenal Reality" is an element of my specially constructed meta-theory -- or the MT-level intellectual product.

.

Your phrase "knowable by reason" is incorrect, since it is not an immanent property of Noumenal Reality to be "knowable" or "unknowable". It is rather our ability to know or our inability to know that we have to talk about. So, I call "Phenomenal Reality" the sum (or totality) of knowledge the given person has due to activity of his consciousness -- in such a way the natural ability I call "consciousness" goes on stage for the first time.

.

So, since I talk about a meta-theory, therefore there is no sense for others to analyze it and express opinions whether they like it or not. A meta-theory -- it is how the given person "sees" or "feels" the world. For example, a person has no need to explain to others why he prefers white girls and black cars, but not vice versa -- such are his meta-theoretical, conceptual, epistemological, or believing preferences formed during his lifetime in his unique conditions of existence.

.

So, our model of the outer world (or, our version of Phenomenal Reality) may be as adequate so inadequate. For the living organism to stay alive, it is preferable for it to have the model of Noumenal Reality as adequate as possible.

.

As to applied theory of consciousness -- it is the AT-level intellectual product -- it becomes constructed within the limits of such or other meta-theory. Some persons (they often call themselves "consciousness-researching scientist") try to construct the applied theory of consciousness within the limits of the existing meta-theory called the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World. In so doing, they apply the methods of Physics, and they call "charlatans" all others who do not apply the methods of Physics. 

.

My approach is different: I hold that we have to construct a special meta-theory in the first hand which presumes elaborating the general methods and models which would correspond to the (informational) nature of the object of study, and only then try to construct an applied theory of consciousness. So, as follows from my approach, "charlatanism", in fact, consists in applying the methods of Physics when studying consciousness, or, in the field beyond of Physics.

.

In either case, I use an objective criterion of assessing the "goodness" of the constructed meta-theory. Namely, a meta-theory is "good" if the applied theories constructed within its limits have sufficient explanatory and predictive power, and it will be the more good the more such applied theories will be constructed. So, if my applied theory of consciousness possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power, then the postulate about objective existence of what I call "Noumenal Reality" should be considered as good.

.

A good analogy is as follows. In case a person has become a President of the United States (this is a firmly established empirical facts), then whatever he did earlier in his life was good as well, and it was good in a sense that all his deeds (whether good or bad from various points of view) have led him to presidency. There is also a saying: "The victors are not judged", or "Success is never blamed", and so on. 

.

Similarly, if a theorist has got an effective applied theory of consciousness (if this is an empirical fact), then the correspondent meta-theory has to be accepted without saying. Another good analogy is as follows: if you love your woman (if it is an empirical fact), then you must love her children, her mother and her other numerous relatives as well, whether you like them or not.

.

[B.M. Puri Maharaja] wrote:

> 2. Reason is not information because it has no material or 

>energetic source outside itself - reason is grounded in necessity 

>or we may say pure logic or law as such without empirical 

>reference. Thus it is not dependent on entropy either. How does 

>your system in any way account for the fundamental role of 

>reason?

.

[S.P.] What is "reason"? In fact, it is a junk word used in vernacular language. As to me, I consider intellectual products as the results of activity of consciousness, and I talk about their rationality and irrationality. That's all. So, why you ask me to answer a question whether YOUR beliefs are good or not? If you believe that "Reason is not information because it has no material or energetic source outside itself" -- it is the element of your meta-theory (or belief system), but not of mine. I cannot be responsible for something that is not mine. I do not use such concepts as "pure logic". 

.

And if you believe in "fundamental role of reason", then why I have to answer why you believe in this? Why my "system" (???) has to account for "fundamental role of reason"? A "system" which "accounts for something" -- it is an applied theory -- the AT-level intellectual product. Your question is profoundly incorrect because a meta-theory is the MT-level intellectual product, and, by definition, it accounts for nothing, explains nothing, and predicts nothing -- its role is different. 

.

For example, one of my meta-theoretical assertions assumes equal fundamentality of three factors -- informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor. The interplay of these three factors results in existence of every entity. Or, to be more exact, any existent entity can be formalized (modeled) as a complex system simultaneously dependent on the 1-st, 2-nd, and 3-rd characteristics which stand for the activity of informational, material, and energetic factors correspondingly. 

.

Then, I go down to the AT-level, and state: if the overall entropy of the complex system becomes sufficiently low, the effect of self-organization appears, which means that the complex system becomes able to keep its low entropy itself through three possible ways: 1) through dealing with physical (sensory) signals and transforming them into the model of the outer world (I call this ability "consciousness"), 2) through consuming food, and 3) through taking part in energetic interactions. So, we have some prediction and some explanation here, and that is why it is the AT-level -- the level of an applied theory which, by definition, must explain something and predict something.

.

So, whatever you use the term "reason" for, it directly pertains to consciousness -- in either case it is not something which exists apart from consciousness, and, consequently, it is dependent on the entropy of the complex system. Also, I do not consider consciousness (reason, intellect, mind, etc.) as fundamental -- I consider equal fundamentality of three mentioned above factors. To the point, by "equal fundamentality" I mean irreducibility to one another.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

.

PS. For my answers to be shorter, please, ask simpler questions. :-)

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 5:35 PM

[Shafiq Khan]

Dear All,

            Theories of Relativity is holding back the progress of physical sciences and it will not allow the humanity to realize the physical reality. The issue is discussed at length in the link https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post. The link discusses what has gone wrong at what point in time. Unless & until the adopted paradigm of physics is rejected and an alternative paradigm of physics adopted the physical reality can in no case be realized. Please read the mentioned link wherein you will see for yourself that the Theories of Relativity are under standing open challenge for last five years.

With Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/84751499.1146839.1500130526838%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”Special and General Relativity and the relativity of inertial frames implies that when the past is past for one set of people it is not necessarily past for another set of people (as long as they are in different inertial frames). We've conducted multiple experiments that confirm relativity (in fact all our GPS devices would have failed if it were not working). Relativity of time is a real thing. This implies the past isn't some universally gone thing; we just can't see it when it's the past in our frame of reference.”

I’ve settled my concerns about special relativity. The energy balance question, with the obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor, is pretty much a no-brainer.

But on general relativity, not so sure. The thing that first got me into this whole line of questioning relativity theory was my discovery that the frequently-cited GPS “evidence” was false. It’s naught but an urban legend. A big, fat nothing-burger. Even one of the heads in the development of GPS said that relativity corrections play no part in GPS technology. Refer to Barry Springer’s article, for an outline of the engineering feedback control algorithms (Laplace transformations) that are integral to GPS functioning:

Springer, Barry (2013). Does GPS Navigation Rely Upon Einstein's Relativity? Proceedings of the NPA:
http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps-system-rely-upon-einsteins-relativity/

sj

 

From: 'Jennifer Nielsen' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:48 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

[Stephen Jarosek]

Paul, Kashyap, Siegried, thanks for your valuable inputs.

For other list members that might be interested… I posted the following question in another forum and received further good answers in the affirmative:

>”Are special relativity predictions consistent with experimental results at near-c at the LHC? LHC has accelerated protons to 0.999999991c. Are collisions at this speed consistent with E=mc^2/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) with Lorentz factor 7450? Here, kinetic energy of two protons colliding yields 7450 (x 2) times the energy-of-collision than would be expected if SR false. Is this experimentally observed?”

An article that relates:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08453.pdf

My original background is in engineering, so this emphasis on the energy-balance is the kind of smack-in-the-face evidence that I was looking for.

Conclusion: The evidence supporting SR is solid. Having established this much, I will be particularly interested in what the following article has to say, when it gets published in September. I mean, how can one argue with the obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor?
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

sj

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Stephen,

I am glad that you made effort to verify literature attesting to the correctness of special theory of relativity. As I said before, science should and does thrive on debates, doubts and controversies. There should not be any censorship. But that does not mean anyone who has not studied  science in detail, can just come up with a wild idea sitting in his house that this theory is wrong and that theory is wrong! People forget that the new theory proposed has to explain all the successes of the previous theory and then some more to deserve replacement.

It takes at least 8-10 years of hard study of college level physics to understand the basics. Physics has become so vast that even these many years are usually not enough.

On the other hand scientists like any other human beings have prejudices. This was the case when Einstein, the greatest  scientist ever born, expressed continual doubts about validity of quantum mechanics. He has been proved mostly wrong about this issue. However, merger of quantum mechanics (QM) and general theory of relativity (GR) has yet to be achieved and it is possible that it will bring novel surprises. But the expectation is that most of the basics in either QM or GR will be preserved. Even when GR came out and superseded Newton’s theory of gravity, Newton’s theory was not trashed. NASA uses it routinely every day in space flights. It is true to an extremely good approximation in space flights.

Of course there are unsolved problems in modern physics, such as dark matter, dark energy, origin of universe, interior of black holes etc. This makes the whole game interesting and worth pursuing. There is no end of science in sight!

In my opinion, Shen’s ideas are wrong. These days there is such a proliferation of on line and printed journals, publication does not mean it is right!! As I said before you have to convince the whole community of physicists that your proposed model is right.

Now Science has not made much progress in  understanding  consciousness. So rather than discussing what is accepted in textbooks of physics for hundred years or more, this group may concentrate on study of consciousness, and science related issues of eastern and western metaphysics.  The number of physicists on this group is so small that we are not going to put dent into well-established principles of modern physics! This is my opinion anyway!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2febf%24c1348920%24439d9b60%24%40net.au.

[Shafiq Khan]

Dear All,

            For information of all the members of this forum E=mc^2 has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" which is available at the journal site at http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885. For further details please refer https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post.

[Siegfried Bleher]

Dear Joe,

 

I teach physics (and yoga) for a living, and do some research as well.  As far as I am concerned, there is no issue whatsoever with Special Relativity, or General Relativity, or Quantum Theory—within their domains of validity.  Attempts to extend GR and QT into regimes in which both are needed brings up limitations—that is the edge of physics as far as the community of physicists at large is concerned.  Attempts to extend QT or any other physical theory into the domain of life and consciousness also brings up limitations and issues.  And that is perfectly understandable, as the latter domains are not the domains of applicability in which or for which physical theories were developed.  As modes of thought, they may inspire metaphysical notions, but to expect any of these theories to directly apply to life and consciousness does disservice to both (in my opinion).  As modes of thought however, we can probably profitably question the fundamental assumptions underlying physical theories, but as theories in their rather clearly demarcated domains, they are extremely successful.

 

Having said this, I do understand physics is a difficult subject, in many ways counterintuitive.  So it is not hard to come away feeling or thinking it is incorrect.  I have a narrow subfield in which I can read the current literature and discuss it at its edge—for any other subfield I can only follow in a general way and would have to review in depth in order follow in detail.  In fact, in several subfields of physics, I just have to trust others who are experts in subjects I really have no clue about, and in the scientific process of peer review, experimental verification, etc.

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph McCard
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

Help!!!

 

I am fairly new to this group, and perhaps I do not understand the protocol. I receive posts regarding the above topic, but can find no thread on this forum. Is this an off-line discussion, and why all the disagreement about interpretations in physics, contrary to what Kashyap claims? 

 

and: "The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

          Again, flat out false."

 

 

What's a mother to do?

 

joe

 

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ae5dc819-21cc-439c-826c-592fe81735db%40googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Jarosek]

>”But that does not mean anyone who has not studied  science in detail, can just come up with a wild idea sitting in his house that this theory is wrong and that theory is wrong!”

Are you suggesting that science doesn’t need to lift its game? The peer review process has serious problems… refer Binswanger (2013) and Horton (2015). General relativity has problems. There is a serious culture problem throughout academia that is a reflection of Fake News Culture and the Clown News Network (CNN). The culture problem of our time is impacting on a politicized academia and its appalling standards. The science problem is a culture problem. Every concern that I raised in my original post still stands.

I am now satisfied about the clearer distinction between SR and GR, and that there exists compelling experimental evidence to justify support for SR (unlike for GR). But that doesn’t mean that SR is off the hook. I still have concerns about the assumptions being made.

And science still needs to lift its game.

Binswanger, M. (2013, December 17). Excellence by nonsense: The competition for publications in modern science. Springer Link:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_3/fulltext.html
Horton, R. (2015, April 11). Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? The Lancet, 385 (9976), 1380:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

Springer, Barry (2013). Does GPS Navitation Rely Upon Einstein's Relativity? Proceedings of the NPA:
http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps-system-rely-upon-einsteins-relativity/

Xinhang Shen (2016). Challenge to the special theory of relativity. Physics Essays 29, 1 (2016):
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

Regards, sj

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/6465156616c34cd49e3c5a519c8ecd07%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Forrest N]

Joseph McCard,

In reply to your "Help" above, I am of little use since I am a newbe also.

But as to your statements:

"....E=mc^2 has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "

Your statement is generally not valid, and is not the case. There have been claims in papers that the formula E=mc^2 cannot be ultimately  proved by any means to date. Some have claimed otherwise, that it has been shown to be valid in certain circumstances, but granted such claims are also controversial.

Because something has not been verified to be valid in any or all cased does not necessarily mean that it is invalid. By far the majority of practitioners consider the equation valid and use it on a regular basis in their work to draw conclusions concerning atomic mass conversions.

"Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe"

Yes, spacetime is a concept more than reality. The concept is that a point in space only has meaning if one is talking about a particular point in time, hence spacetime. I'm sure you realize that most practitioners still look at spacetime as a single entity according to Einstein. Yes, space has not been shown to be warped in any venue, to the contrary it appears to be completely flat. Again, unverified theory does not mean that the theory in invalid.

........and: "The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right."

(your statement)

         

"Again, flat out false."

As for myself I certainly believe that there is no valid quantum theory from which to base QM, and that very little is understood about the underlying simplicity of Quantum Mechanics. All that QM is based upon is about seventy years of observation and they've come up with some very cool equations, many are probability and statistics based equations. Although QM is the best system that we have tody to predict interactions in the quantum world, on the other hand it is almost totally worthless IMO concerning understandings of the quantum world or the world we live in, about as equally worthless as GR in that respect. At least Special Relativity, which will eventually yield to Lorenz Transforms, has some interesting insights into reality, some of which IMO will carry on after SR is replace by LT.

So the only way that your statement above could have validity is if both GR and QM are both totally. Tis true that the formulations of both are the best that we have in their appropriate venues, so are presently valid in that respect, the theory of both of them will ultimately be proven wrong making the above statement totally correct IMO, and not "flat out false" from that theoretical perspective.

You need to explain why you believe that GR and QM are both valid "theory." Of course most would agree that they both are valid theory but those educated in this area realize that the world view of each theory conflicts with the other, and that both cannot be correct in their entirety.

regards, Forrest Noble

 

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

Help!!!

I am fairly new to this group, and perhaps I do not understand the protocol. I receive posts regarding the above topic, but can find no thread on this forum. Is this an off-line discussion, and why all the disagreement about interpretations in physics, contrary to what Kashyap claims? 

"Dear All,

            For information of all the members of this forum E=mc^2 has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" which is available at the journal site at http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885. For further details please refer https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post.

With Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan"

and: "The time to confront these inconsistencies is now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at most, can be right.

          Again, flat out false."

What's a mother to do?

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ae5dc819-21cc-439c-826c-592fe81735db%40googlegroups.com.

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 08:05:24PM +0200, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

> General relativity has problems. There is a serious culture problem throughout
> academia that is a reflection of Fake News Culture and the Clown News Network
> (CNN).

Stephen,

You're complaining about the standards of science, yet your standards are
such that you believe most of the media is conspiring to fake our news? We
can all wish more from all our professionals. But, frankly, they are neither
smart enough on average nor unified enough in attitudes and sentiments to
create grand conspiracies.

The funny things about conspiracies, like the current one between Trump's
people and Putin's, is how badly and sadly they fall apart over relatively
short periods of time.

Best regards,
Whit

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Stephen,

Of course scientists admit all the time that scientific method has limitations. But the fake news is not one of them. Politicians are expert in generating fake news. Sometime journalists, who are not scientists themselves ,do misunderstand the science and write up magazine and newspaper articles with fake news. I can assure you that you will never find fake news in  respectable journals like Physical Review (technical articles) and Physics today ( a monthly magazine to summarize recent physics developments for a general physicist, with small amount of technical details). Incidences of frauds are extremely rare, since requirement, that the experiment and theory have to be reproducible, does not leave much chance to fraud and whenever there is little bit of that, it is rapidly caught!!

As for GR, you might know that recent discovery of gravitational waves gave tremendous confidence in correctness of GR.

Best Rewards.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2ff27%24465f3de0%24d31db9a0%24%40net.au.

[Stephen Jarosek]

>"You're complaining about the standards of science, yet your standards are such that you believe most of the media is conspiring to fake our news?"

I just did a search through my Sadhu Sanga email folder on the terms [Blauvelt liberal]. Easy paydirt. Your liberal colors are showing.

June15,2017>"But given a current American administration which is eco-hostile, anti-humanitarian and conservative -- and most likely to destroy the planet"

No doubt you are confident that a virtue-signalling liberal government, with all their inefficiencies of big government, will do a better job than a leaner, competitive government that does not waste funds on virtue-signalling, and that their science to prove global warming is impeccable. Fake News Media is integral to promulgating the virtue-signalling propaganda of the left.

July27,2016>"The problems that France and Germany are having with some immigrants are because they fail to welcome and integrate them into their societies."

This is surely the view of someone who follows ONLY the Fake News Media.

July26,2016>"You don't like affirmative action? Because the US Constitution referred to blacks as being worth 3/5ths of a man? Diversity is strength. Smart companies know that."

A dedicated follower of affirmative action and "diversity is strength"? 'Nuff said. No doubt about your liberal leanings here. Try telling Sweden about diversity's strengths (and to find out the truth about Sweden's diversity, don't rely on the Fake News Network to report it).

The Fake News Network is a liberal project. Of course you'll believe everything that they'll spew out, even the overblown Russian conspiracy nonsense... while ignoring all the other conspiracies and fraudulent activities carried out by the left under the Clintons and Obama.

sj

-----Original Message-----
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:57 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

--

[Paul Werbos]

Thanks, Stephen, for your seriousness and care with this issue. It is a model of discipline which all of us would do to emulate.

Your initial skepticism is also a great model. Like you, I have often regrouped in my life, but regrouping does not mean giving up. Physics badly needs new serious and honest heretics. For now, it also needs people willing to get deep in the trenches of electromagnetism at the same time. Maybe we should have a parallel discussion on that track, if you are interested.

Best regards,  Paul

On Jul 17, 2017 5:11 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjar...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Paul, Kashyap, Siegried, thanks for your valuable inputs.

For other list members that might be interested… I posted the following question in another forum and received further good answers in the affirmative:

>”Are special relativity predictions consistent with experimental results at near-c at the LHC? LHC has accelerated protons to 0.999999991c. Are collisions at this speed consistent with E=mc^2/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) with Lorentz factor 7450? Here, kinetic energy of two protons colliding yields 7450 (x 2) times the energy-of-collision than would be expected if SR false. Is this experimentally observed?”

An article that relates:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08453.pdf

My original background is in engineering, so this emphasis on the energy-balance is the kind of smack-in-the-face evidence that I was looking for.

Conclusion: The evidence supporting SR is solid. Having established this much, I will be particularly interested in what the following article has to say, when it gets published in September. I mean, how can one argue with the obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor?
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

sj

 

From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Siegfried Bleher
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:48 PM

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2febf%24c1348920%24439d9b60%24%40net.au.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Jul 2017, at 20:05, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

>”But that does not mean anyone who has not studied  science in detail, can just come up with a wild idea sitting in his house that this theory is wrong and that theory is wrong!”

Are you suggesting that science doesn’t need to lift its game? The peer review process has serious problems… refer Binswanger (2013) and Horton (2015). General relativity has problems. There is a serious culture problem throughout academia that is a reflection of Fake News Culture and the Clown News Network (CNN). The culture problem of our time is impacting on a politicized academia and its appalling standards. The science problem is a culture problem. Every concern that I raised in my original post still stands. 

Media, and many academies, like political circle have been stolen by bandits with the politics of prohibition which is based on a lie. Drugs do not exist, they are only medication, which obviously become dangerous when the market is given, by prohibition, to the criminals. Indeed a criminal rarely offer a precise posology, nor does he ask for a medical prescription, ... and when a drug is illegal, any kids can find it at every corners of every streets, sometimes in bad quality, with absurd prices. In this case most academies recognize the fact; but do nothing. 

On some matter, like materialism, some academies are guardian of the dogma, and acts in a more vicious way than the Inquisitions. Here the lies are much older, and more typical. Theology should come back to the academy of science, simply. The Enlightenment Period has not been transformed. Only the natural sciences have been re-enacted, but the theology, and the human science, remains immune against rationalism. People are left with the choice between naive materialism, which is contradicted by the facts, and fairy tales. There are many good theologians, but they are not listen too, when they are not simply excommunicated, or fired.

I am now satisfied about the clearer distinction between SR and GR, and that there exists compelling experimental evidence to justify support for SR (unlike for GR). But that doesn’t mean that SR is off the hook. I still have concerns about the assumptions being made.

SR is a direct consequence of having a maximal speed possible. I doubt SR can be made false. GR is another matter, and we need a quantum theory of gravity to proceed. But with mechanism, looking at the physical reality is almost like cheating. We must deduce physics from simple theological principle, and use the physical reality to refute or improved the theology (the fundamental science per excellence).

Bruno Marchal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2ff27%24465f3de0%24d31db9a0%24%40net.au.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen Jarosek]

Thanks Paul

In the event that some people might be wondering why I'm so anal about getting my physics right, refer to my published paper, Quantum Semiotics:

http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64

We do need to get our assumptions right, and how our experiences in space and time formulate our understandings of what space and time actually are.

sj

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Werbos
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:42 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

Thanks, Stephen, for your seriousness and care with this issue. It is a model of discipline which all of us would do to emulate.

 

Your initial skepticism is also a great model. Like you, I have often regrouped in my life, but regrouping does not mean giving up. Physics badly needs new serious and honest heretics. For now, it also needs people willing to get deep in the trenches of electromagnetism at the same time. Maybe we should have a parallel discussion on that track, if you are interested.

 

Best regards,  Paul

 

On Jul 17, 2017 5:11 AM, "Stephen Jarosek" <sjar...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Paul, Kashyap, Siegried, thanks for your valuable inputs.

For other list members that might be interested… I posted the following question in another forum and received further good answers in the affirmative:

>”Are special relativity predictions consistent with experimental results at near-c at the LHC? LHC has accelerated protons to 0.999999991c. Are collisions at this speed consistent with E=mc^2/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) with Lorentz factor 7450? Here, kinetic energy of two protons colliding yields 7450 (x 2) times the energy-of-collision than would be expected if SR false. Is this experimentally observed?”

An article that relates:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08453.pdf

My original background is in engineering, so this emphasis on the energy-balance is the kind of smack-in-the-face evidence that I was looking for.

Conclusion: The evidence supporting SR is solid. Having established this much, I will be particularly interested in what the following article has to say, when it gets published in September. I mean, how can one argue with the obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor?
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

sj

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Siegfried Bleher
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:48 PM

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

Dear Stephen,

 

There is no conflict between SR and QM and no controversy from the perspective of physics as practiced today.  There is, however, a lack of agreement between GR and QM or, rather, they don’t ‘mesh’ under conditions that require both to apply or, more simply, neither can make sensible predictions in such conditions.  The fact that GR evolves from SR does not imply that GR should either agree with QM or be incorrect—the ‘disagreement’ arises in regimes of size and mass where SR is no longer adequate (and GR is required), and QM is also required. 

 

Time as felt subjectively (by us or by flies) has little relationship to the time standards used in physics (e.g. the time related to the frequency difference between two energy levels of an atom), or to time as it appears in equations of physics.  In turn, questions of time symmetric QM, faster than light communication or FTL ‘connection’ are addressable from those equations (or modified versions), without relying on intuitive notions of time.  Now, having said this, I agree that intuitive notions of time, or perhaps experiences of timelessness or no-time may inspire new insights into wider applicability of existing equations, or modified equations with wider applicability.  And, along the lines of inquiry of this forum, new insights into the relationship between science and spirit.

 

Given the success of SR, QED, GR, Standard Model, etc., in their domains of applicability, any new insights would likely occur outside their individual domains of applicability.  A nice interactive graphic has been provided by Quanta Magazine for the current “Theories of Everything” in physics: https://www.quantamagazine.org/frontier-of-physics-interactive-map-20150803

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Jarosek
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:07 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Is relativity theory holding back progress in science?

 

Paul Werbos>” No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM, period.”

The following article is of a very different opinion. The controversy is clearly far from settled. From Nature 547, 156–158 (13 July 2017) doi:10.1038/547156a:
http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20170711

Sixty years ago, physicists congregated to discuss gravity in a seminal conference at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Richard Feynman proposed a thought experiment to analyse a deep problem: the incompatibility of quantum theory and general relativity. We think that his argument needs revisiting
[...]
A starting point would be a focused meeting bringing together the quantum- and gravity-physics communities, as well as theorists and experimentalists. Perhaps it is time for a second Chapel Hill conference.

 

sj

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcoa9%3D7fyom-eCkm_CGtiX-me%2B%2B5vegPBcxWLeNC5qg7g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2febf%24c1348920%24439d9b60%24%40net.au.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgeBvZizmt0ZWeRnCVsudhMnSJVS_dQN9YLiwDvtNmYqeQ%40mail.gmail.com.