Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
John Clark
> On the energy issue, what really bothers me about your stance on this issue, is NOT that you can't offer a possible model or explanation for where the energy comes from to create those other worlds, but that you don't even recognize that such an issue exists. Others in this MWI cult behave similarly. AG
Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson
John Clark
Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson
I think you truncated my comment. I wrote, or should have written, that in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL. In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat it as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
John Clark
> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.
> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
> If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct?
Alan Grayson
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AGMWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously
Alan Grayson
John K Clark
Brent Meeker
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.
In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.
> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously
IMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turn (and numerous other turns!). I see no way around this violation of GR. AG
Brent
or if the new creation only comes into existence at the speed of light; it doesn't say because it does it need to, it works fine either way. MWI Is agnostic about that.
> If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct?
Correct, that can only be established through observation and experimentation. However if General Relativity is correct and if empty space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the universe is indeed zero.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f21824c-c1d7-4dd2-98ca-c78da0969e80n%40googlegroups.com.
Alan Grayson
On 2/3/2021 12:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.
In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.
> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously
IMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turn (and numerous other turns!). I see no way around this violation of GR. AG
You need to think of better examples. Something like Deutsch making a decision is with probability near 1.0 a purely classical event. If it has some quantum component in its causation it was probably weeks earlier and in concert with thousands of classical effects.
Brent
Brent Meeker
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 3:39:44 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
On 2/3/2021 12:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.
In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.
> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously
IMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turn (and numerous other turns!). I see no way around this violation of GR. AG
You need to think of better examples. Something like Deutsch making a decision is with probability near 1.0 a purely classical event. If it has some quantum component in its causation it was probably weeks earlier and in concert with thousands of classical effects.
Brent
It's just a thought experiment which makes the necessary point. Assume Deutsch can take alternate routes with the decision depending on whether he measures spin UP or DN. Would this work? AG
Brent
--
or if the new creation only comes into existence at the speed of light; it doesn't say because it does it need to, it works fine either way. MWI Is agnostic about that.
> If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct?
Correct, that can only be established through observation and experimentation. However if General Relativity is correct and if empty space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the universe is indeed zero.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f21824c-c1d7-4dd2-98ca-c78da0969e80n%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a54ec42e-24e9-4f11-89be-4f3d48ba6998n%40googlegroups.com.
Alan Grayson
On 2/3/2021 3:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 3:39:44 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
On 2/3/2021 12:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.
In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.
> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously
IMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turn (and numerous other turns!). I see no way around this violation of GR. AG
You need to think of better examples. Something like Deutsch making a decision is with probability near 1.0 a purely classical event. If it has some quantum component in its causation it was probably weeks earlier and in concert with thousands of classical effects.
Brent
It's just a thought experiment which makes the necessary point. Assume Deutsch can take alternate routes with the decision depending on whether he measures spin UP or DN. Would this work? AG
Sure. Or the signal light is controlled by a Geiger counter. It makes the problem clearer and gets away from questions about consciousness.
Brent
John Clark
>> MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneouslyIMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turn
> if General Relativity is correct and if empty space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the universe is indeed zero.
> What's your argument,
> or please repeat and refine it
Which part didn't you understand?
Alan Grayson
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:>> MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneouslyIMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turnIf you want to take the view that an entire new universe is created instantaneously that's fine with MWI.
And if you want to take the view that the new creation only spreads outward from the intersection where Professor Deutsch made his turn at the speed of light then that's fine too because no observer anywhere in the multiverse or outside of it (If that made any sense which it doesn't) could tell the difference.> if General Relativity is correct and if empty space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the universe is indeed zero.
> What's your argument,I've already given it.> or please repeat and refine it
Which part didn't you understand?
John K Clark
Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:34 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> On the energy issue, what really bothers me about your stance on this issue, is NOT that you can't offer a possible model or explanation for where the energy comes from to create those other worlds, but that you don't even recognize that such an issue exists. Others in this MWI cult behave similarly. AGThere is no energy issue, we've known from General Relativity as far back as 1915 that the conservation of energy does not hold on the cosmic level, not if completely empty space retains some residual energy and General Relativity allows for this. The gravitational potential energy of a sphere of particles of matter like sand is alway negative, this is true in Newtonian Physics and remains true in General Relativity, so the gravitational potential energy of a sphere of particles of mass-energy M and radius R is PE= (-G*M^2)/R where G is the gravitational constant.
It’s important to note that this is negative energy so the larger R gets the closer the potential energy gets to zero, and if it was at infinity it would be precisely zero. if the sphere expands and is made of sand which is normal matter then M stays the same but R increases so the gravitational potential energy becomes less negative and more positive, and that means it's uphill; It would take an external expenditure of work to do that, so if you let the sphere go to rest it would fall inward as you'd expect.However if the sphere is primarily made of empty space and empty space contains energy then things would be different because unlike an expanding sphere made of sand the density of mass /energy inside an expanding sphere of empty space would not decrease with expansion, so when the sphere expands although R increases M^2 increases even more,
so the overall gravitational potential energy becomes larger and thus more negative. So if the vacuum contains negative energy as this sphere increases in size it becomes more negative and that means expansion is downhill, and thus no work is used but instead work is produced. So in any universe in which vacuum energy dominates it will expand, it will fall outward and accelerate. Regardless of if there are many worlds or only one, most think vacuum energy is what makes our universe accelerate. You might ask if the sphere gets larger what makes it get larger, where did that mass/energy come from? The answer is It comes from the gravitational energy released as the sphere of vacuum energy falls outward. So at any point in this process if you add up all the positive kinetic energy and energy locked up in matter (remember E=MC^2) of the universe and all the negative potential gravitational energy of the universe you always get precisely zero.John K Clark
Basically, I don't understand your argument (which doesn't mean it's wrong). For starters, where does the mass come from, which contributes to the rest energy? TIA, AG
John Clark
>> If you want to take the view that an entire new universe is created instantaneously that's fine with MWI.
> Maybe fine with the MWI, but definitely not with GR, which you take as your inspiration on this issue. How can you apply GR and then claim the instantaneous creation of other worlds by the MWI? AG
> Basically, I don't understand your argument (which doesn't mean it's wrong). For starters, where does the mass comes from, which contributes to the rest energy? TIA, AG
> Is this the GR expression for PE, which you earlier stated is different from Newtonian physics?
> Now you want to assume rest mass exists in your sphere containing negative vacuum energy. AG
> In an expanding sphere which is assumed to contain rest mass, why does M or M^2 increase as R increases? AG
Philip Benjamin
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Alan Grayson Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:12 AM")
[Alan Grayson <agrayson2000 .com>]
“owever if the sphere is primarily made of empty space and empty space contains energy then things would be different because unlike an expanding sphere made of sand the density of mass /energy inside an expanding sphere of empty space would not decrease with expansion,…”
[Philip Benjamin]
Quantum vacuum is a very common logical fallacy. First of all “quantum” is the least measure of anything that does or can exist.Anything
is a THING not NOTHING. If nothing ever existed, nothing CAN all that exist today! Ex nihilo nihil fit (Parmenides). Energy is SOMETHING. Quantum vacuum technically means the smallest unit of a vacuum, which is meaningless if vacuum is NOTHING.
1 . Where did this vacuum energy come from? 2 . Does vacuum energy possess aseity? 3. What is MORE reasonable—aseity of dead vacuum energy or aseity of LIFE? 4. Nothing can SELF-CREATE—nothing can BE before it can BE. That is a logical contradiction. In fact, it is against all laws of logic. 5 .How do you account for life in any of the Many Worlds? Is there Many World Chemistries? 5 . Why equate WAVE_LIKENESS with WAVINESS—quantum particle always remains particle, it may BEHAVE wavelike.
Philip Benjamin
Oh, you assume it exists. AG .
spudb...@aol.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Alan Grayson
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:>> If you want to take the view that an entire new universe is created instantaneously that's fine with MWI.> Maybe fine with the MWI, but definitely not with GR, which you take as your inspiration on this issue. How can you apply GR and then claim the instantaneous creation of other worlds by the MWI? AGLike every other scientific theory General Relativity is perfectly fine with any assumption if its truth or falsity can never make any difference to any observer anywhere at any time. So if you want to believe an entire universe instantly pops into existence that's fine with General Relativity and with the MWI; and if you want to believe it only comes into existence at the speed of light that's fine with General Relativity and the MWI and Darwins theory and every other scientific theory you can think of. Whatever floats your boat.
> Basically, I don't understand your argument (which doesn't mean it's wrong). For starters, where does the mass comes from, which contributes to the rest energy? TIA, AGIn relativity mass and energy are the same thing, remember E=MC^2, so the kinetic energy needed to do work comes from the mass/energy released by vacuum potential energy falling outward. In a similar way a hydroelectric dam produces electrical energy that can do work from the potential energy released by water falling inward.
> Is this the GR expression for PE, which you earlier stated is different from Newtonian physics?No. The formula for gravitational potential energy is the same in both Newtons and Einstein's theory.
> Now you want to assume rest mass exists in your sphere containing negative vacuum energy. AGIf vacuum energy really does exist then It's an intrinsic property of space itself and so it doesn't move, it always stays the same, so I guess you could call that rest mass if you want but I don't know why you'd want to. Light moves as fast as things can go and has zero rest mass, but even a photon of light has a gravitational field, in fact if you concentrated light enough into a small enough volume it would turn into a Black Hole. Such a ball of light is called a "Kugelblitz".
John Clark
>>In relativity mass and energy are the same thing, remember E=MC^2, so the kinetic energy needed to do work comes from the mass/energy released by vacuum potential energy falling outward. In a similar way a hydroelectric dam produces electrical energy that can do work from the potential energy released by water falling inward.> But rest energy is positive whereas potential energy is negative. How do you expect negative potential energy to transform into positive rest energy? AG
>>> Is this the GR expression for PE, which you earlier stated is different from Newtonian physics?>> No. The formula for gravitational potential energy is the same in both Newtons and Einstein's theory.> I could swear you posted the opposite recently. When I have the motivation, I'll try to find it. AG
>> If vacuum energy really does exist then It's an intrinsic property of space itself and so it doesn't move, it always stays the same, so I guess you could call that rest mass if you want but I don't know why you'd want to. Light moves as fast as things can go and has zero rest mass, but even a photon of light has a gravitational field, in fact if you concentrated light enough into a small enough volume it would turn into a Black Hole. Such a ball of light is called a "Kugelblitz".> Didn't you assume your sphere has some initial mass in the form of "sand"?
> Or is it now light?
> Doesn't really matter, except you have to account for positive rest and kinetic energies equating to negative potential energy,
Alan Grayson
Alan Grayson
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 6:13:32 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 9:13 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:>>In relativity mass and energy are the same thing, remember E=MC^2, so the kinetic energy needed to do work comes from the mass/energy released by vacuum potential energy falling outward. In a similar way a hydroelectric dam produces electrical energy that can do work from the potential energy released by water falling inward.> But rest energy is positive whereas potential energy is negative. How do you expect negative potential energy to transform into positive rest energy? AGYou've asked that exact same question before and I've answered it before, it does it the same way a hydroelectric dam transfers negative potential energy into positive energy that can do work; in the case of normal matter like water that's done by falling inward, in the case of vacuum energy that's done by falling outward.>>> Is this the GR expression for PE, which you earlier stated is different from Newtonian physics?>> No. The formula for gravitational potential energy is the same in both Newtons and Einstein's theory.> I could swear you posted the opposite recently. When I have the motivation, I'll try to find it. AGThe formula for gravitational potential energy is the same in both theories, although Newton didn't know about E=MC^2 or vacuum energy so the calculations sometimes differed, sometimes only slightly sometimes by a lot. For example Newton would've said that 2 hot iron cannonballs placed one foot apart and 2 cold cannonballs at the same distance would have exactly the same gravitational potential energy, but Einstein would say they would not because the hot iron cannonballs had more energy and thus have more mass than the cold iron cannonballs.>> If vacuum energy really does exist then It's an intrinsic property of space itself and so it doesn't move, it always stays the same, so I guess you could call that rest mass if you want but I don't know why you'd want to. Light moves as fast as things can go and has zero rest mass, but even a photon of light has a gravitational field, in fact if you concentrated light enough into a small enough volume it would turn into a Black Hole. Such a ball of light is called a "Kugelblitz".> Didn't you assume your sphere has some initial mass in the form of "sand"?I gave two examples, the first was a sphere made of normal matter like sand, as the radius R of the sphere got larger the mass stayed the same, so according to the formula for gravitational potential energy PE= (-G*M^2)/R becomes less negative and more positive, and that means it's uphill and so would need work to accomplish. In my second example I considered an expanding sphere of vacuum energy, in that case M does not stay the same but increases to the cube of R, So by using the same formula that means it would be downhill and can produce work.
John Clark
> The formula for PE is valid for fixed rest mass M,
> In the case of an expanding sphere of vacuum energy, by what process does rest mass increase?
Alan Grayson
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 8:53 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> The formula for PE is valid for fixed rest mass M,NO! Assuming General Relativity is correct the formula PE= -(G*M^2)/R is valid for ANY mass, even a photon of light because a photon contains energy and M=E/C^2, and a photon of light is about as far from being "fixed" as you can get.
> In the case of an expanding sphere of vacuum energy, by what process does rest mass increase?I don't know what to tell you Alan, you keep asking the same question over and over again and I keep answering it, but rather than actually reading what I say and critiquing my answer you just ask the exact same question again.
Alan Grayson
John Clark
Assuming General Relativity is correct the formula PE= -(G*M^2)/R is valid for ANY mass, even a photon of light because a photon contains energy and M=E/C^2, and a photon of light is about as far from being "fixed" as you can get.You misunderstand. For a particular mass M, the formula works. But in your model M increases for an expanding vacuum sphere. Do you mean to sum over the individual masses, to get the total PE?
> Anyway, without more information, I don't see how you can calculate the KE
> As far as I can tell, you just keep asserting that the rest mass
> increases as the vacuum sphere increases, but I haven't seen anything other than an assertion.
Philip Benjamin
general...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
[Philip Benjamin]
There is nothing empty in quantum physics. Everything is teaming with “energy”, and energy according to “quantum mystics” is NOTHING!! The entire “CopenPagan” Interpretation is based on the logical fallacy of wave-likeness = waviness. Politicians and journalists (all mostly non-scientists who mostly hate the rigors of that discipline) are easily hoodwinked by funds-starving science researchers by un-evidential trans-speciation, fallacious duality of wave likeness = waviness, spiritism etc. Mosty of of them never heard of Augustinian transformation of consciousness, or the “The Two Great Awakenings” or Wesleyan- Whitfield Revivals (that rescued England from anarchist French Revolution) or the Reformation-Puritanism effects all of which shaped and separated the Western Civilization from the rest of a kundalini/reptilian civilized –learned world of un-awakened pagan consciousness.
Philip Benjamin
Notes: “Dalai Lama’s reincarnation included in Congress’ $900 billion COVID relief bill. BY ROSS NERVIG AND LILLY GREENBLATT, JANUARY 5,
https://exploringyourmind.com/the-dalai-lama-on-quantum-physics-and-spirituality/ “In this article, discover the common principles that quantum physics and [Buddhist] spirituality share!”. https://www.nj.com/news/2011/05/deepak_chopra_relates_quantum.html “Deepak Chopra relates quantum physics to Buddhist teachings in Newark peace summit talk Updated Mar 31, 2019; Posted May 13, 2011”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/buddhism-cosmology-and-ev_b_1286165. “ John Stanley Director, Ecological Buddhism David Loy, Zen Teacher Buddhism, Cosmology and Evolution 02/26/2012 09:59 pm ET Updated Apr 27, 2012 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/buddhism-cosmology-and-ev_b_1286165”
Philip Benjamin
'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
define empty space
------ Original Message ------ "Philip Benjamin" <medin...@hotmail.com>: "general...@googlegroups.com"
Thursday, 4 Feb, 21 At 14:54 Subject: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Alan Grayson Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:12 AM")
[Alan Grayson <agrayson2000 .com>]
“However if the sphere is primarily made of empty space and empty space contains energy then things would be different because unlike an expanding sphere made of sand the density of mass /energy inside an expanding sphere of empty space would not decrease with expansion,…”
Alan Grayson
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:55 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:Assuming General Relativity is correct the formula PE= -(G*M^2)/R is valid for ANY mass, even a photon of light because a photon contains energy and M=E/C^2, and a photon of light is about as far from being "fixed" as you can get.You misunderstand. For a particular mass M, the formula works. But in your model M increases for an expanding vacuum sphere. Do you mean to sum over the individual masses, to get the total PE?Obviously> Anyway, without more information, I don't see how you can calculate the KEIf the formula that I gave for gravitational potential energy is not valid then hydroelectric dams generate their energy from nothing and the conservation of energy would not only be violated on the cosmic scale but would be violated on the local scale as well and thus be absolutely useless.> As far as I can tell, you just keep asserting that the rest massWhy do you keep talking about "rest mass"?
John Clark
> you've asserted that the total gravitational energy is identically zero,
Alan Grayson
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> you've asserted that the total gravitational energy is identically zero,NO! Two particles have zero gravitational potential energy only if they are infinitely far apart, at any other finite distance it's negative.
What I've asserted is that if General Relativity is correct then the negative gravitational potential energy plus the positive mass/energy that comes from rest mass, photons, neutrinos, kinetic motion, and all other well-known sources of energy must sum to zero.
But when we actually observe the universe that doesn't seem to work because the negative gravitational energy produced by all the stuff we can see only amounts to about 30% of what would be needed to balance out the positive energy that comes from matter even if you include Dark Matter.
However we've also noticed Dark Energy that causes the universe to accelerate. Accelerating the entire universe to the degree we've seen would require a very large additional negative potential energy reservoir of some sort, like the vacuum energy that is part of space itself, and it turns out that the amount needed would provide the missing 70% to make the total energy of the universe be exactly zero.
John Clark
> you haven't explained how negative gravitational energy is converted to rest mass
John Clark
Alan Grayson
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
What does gravity look like? What does a photon look like? The fundamental question of “missing mass” relate the observable humongous difference between the measured gravitational mass of a spiral galaxy and the measured optical mass of the same.
If anything INVISIBLE exists as a living, conscious entity, it must necessarily have a physics, chemistry and biology of its own. As for the biosphere what is a more reasonable candidate for that than bio dark-matter with bio dark-matter chemistry?
Philip Benjamin
Philip Benjamin
[Alan Grayson]
"What I've asserted is that if General Relativity is correct then the negative gravitational potential energy plus the positive mass/energy
that comes from rest mass, photons, neutrinos, kinetic motion, and all other well-known sources of energy must sum to zero”.
[Philip Benjamin]
Granted, this is all true, what is the source of rest mass of photons or Higgs Boson or of positivity and negativity? These are all dead matter, how and why or where do their “consciousness” (or life arise)? Something ought to have aseity here, if so what is a more reasonable candidate- Life that produces dead matter as well as other forms of life or Dead Matter generating LIFE?
Philip Benjamin
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Alan Grayson
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:14 PM
To: Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:49:53 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you've asserted that the total gravitational energy is identically zero,
NO! Two particles have zero gravitational potential energy only if they are infinitely far apart, at any other finite distance it's negative.
I've asked you to refrain from truncating my comments. By doing so in this case, you've distorted my meaning. AG
What I've asserted is that if General Relativity is correct then the negative gravitational potential energy plus the positive mass/energy that comes from rest mass, photons, neutrinos, kinetic motion, and all other well-known sources of energy must sum to zero.
Well, I thought you had a principled argument, not just a claim. AG .
John Clark
> [Alan Grayson]
"What I've asserted is that if General Relativity is correct then the negative gravitational potential energy plus the positive mass/energy that comes from rest mass, photons, neutrinos, kinetic motion, and all other well-known sources of energy must sum to zero”.
> [Philip Benjamin]
Granted, this is all true, what is the source of rest mass of photons
>These are all dead matter,
> how and why or where do their “consciousness” (or life arise)?
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Regret the name mix-up. It is difficult to figure out who writes what. When and where do photons rest? What theory or experiment forbids them not to have mass at an indeterminate decimal place? “Aseity” is a fundamental question of existence which the scientific academia completely and conveniently ignores. No wonder most if not all the academia has become Marxist Progressives.
Philip Benjamin
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 12:11 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2-WvQBc0NrqDLO5UUu0t43%2B7e4G_d2noanSba3iXNpaw%40mail.gmail.com.
Alan Grayson
[Philip Benjamin]
Regret the name mix-up. It is difficult to figure out who writes what.
When and where do photons rest? What theory or experiment forbids them not to have mass at an indeterminate decimal place?Photo
Aseity” is a fundamental question of existence which the scientific academia completely and conveniently ignores. No wonder most if not all the academia has become Marxist Progressives.
John Clark
> When and where do photons rest?
> What theory or experiment forbids them not to have mass
> No wonder most if not all the academia has become Marxist Progressives.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
If photons never rest, they never have a rest mass either! It is only an assumption that photons have rest mas = 0. A mass at an indeterminate decimal place of RELATIVELY negligible value is almost the same as zero rest mass. The gravitational ‘lensing’ of light has thus a “commonsensical” explanation! Photons are not merely little packets of light energy. They are corpuscles (of strange matter) with RELATIVELY negligible mass, and thus they do have momentum. A change in momentum yields a force, enabling light to physically interact with matter (distortions of space and time thus become non sequitur).
Marxism is not merely politics. It is claimed to be “science” and has falsely much to say about ontology. So, the acade-media Marxism became unquestionable. It has the final say on ultimate reality, for which Relativity is often relied upon. Acade-media Marxism absurdly ignores the fact that Relativity has an ABSOLUTE—the in vacuo speed of light.
Philip Benjamin
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 4:19 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:54 PM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0JYaN%3DEg9aFQ%2BABz20eXJzF4dtdCXkGJzCY464sWekqw%40mail.gmail.com.
John Clark
> If photons never rest, they never have a rest mass either!
> It's only an assumption that photons have rest mas = 0. A mass at an indeterminate decimal place of RELATIVELY negligible value is almost the same as zero rest mass. The gravitational ‘lensing’ of light has thus a “commonsensical” explanation!
> Marxism is not merely politics. It is claimed to be “science” and [...]
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Two best physical theories are quantum mechanics (for the least tiny and probabilistic) and relativity (for the very massive and/or very fast). They currently use fundamentally and conceptually different kinds of mathematics. They both have excellent predictive powers, but they use radically different mathematical language.
Mathematical “constructs” are not necessarily physical realities. Space-time is a convenient and meaningful mathematical construct. In physical theories, when equations begin to yield infinites, infinite regress, parallel worlds etc. best theories are, misrepresent and misalign physical realities. Then new and more “scientifically” commonsensical ideas are needed, such as Wave-likeness ≠ Waviness. Newton’s assumptions in his mathematical equations may be wrong. Time itself may be three dimensional.
https://www.pas.rochester.edu/assets/pdf/undergraduate/gravitational_lensing.pdf, Fatima Zaidouni.
https://medium.com/@deepbreadth/newton-was-wrong-so-was-einstein-and-thats-okay-a5ad4dedfe26 January 17, 2018 https://www.specularium.org/3d-time X
Philip Benjamin
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 2:34 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 1:02 PM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZQ2_esTLYKCQ8mXF_15BEaQ9my%3DzSGm7q%3DwLDgyKH8A%40mail.gmail.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Questions:
1 . Property of what? Of space? Of matter? Will not “…the idea of consciousness being the property that expands space” deprive “consciousness” of its ontological nature?
2 . Quantum reality? Isn’t it the reality of “quantum (least measurable, quantifiable unit) particles”—PARTICLES nonetheless?
3 . Isn’t the PHYSICAL reality that of “ Wave-likeness of real particles” and not the imaginary waviness and the imaginary creation of
artificial puzzles and paradoxes?
4 . “… Many years working closely with people with developmental disabilities taught me this”. Addiction to alcohol, drugs,
sex, occultism, sorcery, gambling etc. often have verisimilar consequences as developmental disabilities. Some of the pioneers
of quantum physics were addicts, otherwise psychiatrist (& a sorcerer) Carl Jung would not have been a contributing
“quantum pioneer”.
5 . “ Understanding of cause and effect and logic”, “individual consciousness seems to have the desire to exist”, “ to exist it
needs something to exist in”, “empty space expanding”? These are questions of aseity, causality, origin, meaning (desire), telos
etc. which do not belong to the realm of any objective science.
6 . In fact all these issues do not deal with the question of “what is consciousness?”, rather they deal with “what an individual is
conscious of?” There is the world out there and the world within? An expanding empty space is an oxymoron. So also self-
consciousness is another oxymoron when “self” is not real. If self is real and invisible the only candidate available for science today
is bio dark-matter (of negligible mass) with its bio dark-matter chemistry, cocreating the resonant “dark” and “light” twins from the
moment of conception.
Closed thinking is tunnel vision. It is an established hierarchical, inflexible task based path. Here one does not think about much more than getting routines done. A more spatial, tolerant and relaxed open mode thinking will require breaking ranks with the establishment swamp.
Philip Benjamin
From: general...@googlegroups.com <general...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Roland Cichowski
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 6:34 AM
To: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
…….
The analogy to the idea of consciousness being the property that expands space
is of course a good one. ……
. ……. Someone involved in understanding what
quantum reality is with all its concepts can be likened to being the weaver weaving the rug. ……. the transference of energy back and forth and those who seek the bigger picture of the quantum reality are in effect out there trying
to determine the nature of the loom itself and how it is supporting all these warp and weft threads. …… They want to be able to see the design and complete it in order to bring it into reality. Who conceives the original design, well that is another issue………
Our realities must seem to make sense to us or they and we would not function properly.
Many years working closely with people with developmental disabilities taught me this. I owe some of my understanding to them.
We need to understand the laws of physics and the process of
cause and effect and logic. If we don’t what is going on around us becomes an even more confusing process and we lessen the means we might have to operate within it. This is what many of those who fail to develop normally experience. Put simply they
create disorganised and chaotic rugs and fail to make sense of them at all.
In being so focused on the problem of weaving a rug (physical reality) we miss the obvious and that is that no matter how beautiful the rug is that is being woven is; it is not where consciousness is. Consciousness has to reside in the weaver not the rug and few take the time to examine who and what the weaver is. ……… Therefore to all those who become too embroiled in the construction of the rug (physical reality) I would say this is not going to give you the knowledge of who or what the weaver (consciousness) is. Of course the weaver represents us or to be more precise our individual consciousness. If you consider the situation presented by the weaver and their creation of a rug you can perceive the problem of consciousness more easily.
At least, originally the interest of most on this list was to solve the problem of consciousness…… Your awareness and the nature of the consciousness you seek is always going to be residing in the weaver not the rug. It is you that is conscious not the world around you, which is just a projection of consciousness………. In attempting to define the nature of empty space we can place our self in the position of consciousness or the weaver. Just as the weaver is creating (expanding) the rug so consciousness would seem to be the force which is expanding or creating space. It is a space within, which a rug can exist.
I don’t know if this explains how or why consciousness does this apart from that it would seem to have the desire to exist. Perhaps to exist it needs something to exist in and expands the sensation of space around it, don’t you think.
All the best. Roland
------ Original Message ------ From: "Roland Cichowski" <rolandshh@ > To: "'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online" <general...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, 7 Feb, 21 At 02:05 Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
Defining a point?
Brilliant Rosemary.
SPACE: can/could be defined as a point which has no external boundaries.
It has the potential for expansion in any direction.
Normally we experience it from three dimensions but it has a fourth which we call time.
Empty: can be defined as possessing no contents it is void of anything. So: can a point have no contents and if it should expand what would be within it?
To take up a perspective from within a point you can conjecture an infinite expansion. For a point has no boundary.
But if it has no content (empty) it is no more than a point and not even you can be within it.
To take up a perspective external to a point then that perspective suggests a space within which there is a point. It is not empty. The space has a point within it. To place yourself (consciousness) within a point creates the impression of emptiness extending infinitely all around you. This impression is within your consciousness. Your consciousness is within the point. This means that the point is not empty it contains your consciousness. This is what you experience when you conjecture or imagine empty space.
However, it can only be conjectured when you are present within that space so such a space is never truly empty it contains your consciousness.
Thus a point becomes (a point of consciousness) consciousness. It suggests that only consciousness exists. All is mind!
Within that conscious point all of phenomenal experience is created.
Empty your mind and you will find you are a point of conscious awareness filling or extending yourself into empty space. We tend to find this an intolerable existence, especially for eternity. We therefore fill it.
Empty space can be said to exist but only as a concept within your mind.
How creative is the conscious mind.
All the best Roland
On 5/02/2021 4:38, 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online wrote:
define empty space
------ Original Message ------ From: "Philip Benjamin" <medin...@hotmail.com> To: "general...@googlegroups.com" <general...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, 4 Feb, 21 At 14:54 Subject: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Alan Grayson Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:12 AM")
[Alan Grayson <agrayson2000 .com>]
“However if the sphere is primarily made of empty space and empty space contains energy then things would be different because unlike an expanding sphere made of sand the density of mass /energy inside an expanding sphere of empty space would not decrease with expansion,…”
[Philip Benjamin]
Quantum vacuum is a very common logical fallacy. First of all “quantum” is the least measure of anything that does or can exist.Anything
is a THING not NOTHING. If nothing ever existed, nothing CAN all that exist today! Ex nihilo nihil fit (Parmenides). Energy is SOMETHING. Quantum vacuum technically means the smallest unit of a vacuum, which is meaningless if vacuum is NOTHING.
1 . Where did this vacuum energy come from? 2 . Does vacuum energy possess aseity? 3. What is MORE reasonable—aseity of dead vacuum energy or aseity of LIFE? 4. Nothing can SELF-CREATE—nothing can BE before it can BE. That is a logical contradiction. In fact, it is against all laws of logic. 5 .How do you account for life in any of the Many Worlds? Is there Many World Chemistries? 5 . Why equate WAVE_LIKENESS with WAVINESS—quantum particle always remains particle, it may BEHAVE wavelike.
Philip Benjamin
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/cf0da9ac-2987-b1bd-6cb2-312da94f7075%40gmail.com.
Bruno Marchal
On 3 Feb 2021, at 18:54, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AGMWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously or if the new creation only comes into existence at the speed of light; it doesn't say because it does it need to, it works fine either way. MWI Is agnostic about that.
> If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct?Correct, that can only be established through observation and experimentation. However if General Relativity is correct and if empty space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the universe is indeed zero.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0A9bG7km12%2BTaY5tZfxWmE5UzkbLDC82n4vdVVC1pCWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruno Marchal
On 4 Feb 2021, at 01:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 2/3/2021 3:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 3:39:44 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
On 2/3/2021 12:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL.
In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand.
> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG
MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously
IMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a left turn (and numerous other turns!). I see no way around this violation of GR. AG
You need to think of better examples. Something like Deutsch making a decision is with probability near 1.0 a purely classical event. If it has some quantum component in its causation it was probably weeks earlier and in concert with thousands of classical effects.
Brent
It's just a thought experiment which makes the necessary point. Assume Deutsch can take alternate routes with the decision depending on whether he measures spin UP or DN. Would this work? AG
Sure. Or the signal light is controlled by a Geiger counter. It makes the problem clearer and gets away from questions about consciousness.
Brent
or if the new creation only comes into existence at the speed of light; it doesn't say because it does it need to, it works fine either way. MWI Is agnostic about that.
> If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct?
Correct, that can only be established through observation and experimentation. However if General Relativity is correct and if empty space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the universe is indeed zero.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f21824c-c1d7-4dd2-98ca-c78da0969e80n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a54ec42e-24e9-4f11-89be-4f3d48ba6998n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b7580e2-66ff-817f-0b97-13dbbddae994%40verizon.net.
Bruno Marchal
> how and why or where do their “consciousness” (or life arise)?
What the hell?
scerir
Alan Grayson
scerir
I hope these links work
scerir
AG, no unfortunately I did not read it. But I read, long time ago, that Heisenberg (and Dirac, and many more) was well aware of the main problem. That is to say the (physical meaning of) superposition and the (physical meaning of) projection postulate. So it is ... a long story! -serafino
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c91c2ac-4b89-4cb0-b55d-a5475bd1a17dn%40googlegroups.com.
smitra
particular emphasis on recent developments. I've quickly read some parts
of it, and I think Adlam has done an excellent job presenting the
different opinions and approaches to this problem.
Saibal
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c91c2ac-4b89-4cb0-b55d-a5475bd1a17dn%40googlegroups.com
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c91c2ac-4b89-4cb0-b55d-a5475bd1a17dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
Philip Benjamin
From: Philip Benjamin general...@googlegroups.com Cc: Roland Cichowski <rolandshh@ > Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
[Roland Cichowski]
Dare I ask why your posts are filled, perhaps, so vehemently with all of the Augustinian, pagan, Wamp stuff. It may have given me a wrong impression of you. I don’t understand what it has to do with consciousness.
[Philip Benjamin]
Any refence to the authoritarian, global-Marxist-socialist (Comintern) is “vehemently” disapproved and branded as “conspiratorial” bigotry and “ignorance” by the established acade-media order. European and American histories (other than the Progressive-pagan revisionist versions) are expunged from the curricula under the pretext of Church-State separation, because most of these histories are related to and deeply rooted in Church History. It is a conscious (pagan un-awakened, kundalini/reptilian), calculated misstatements about distant or recent past. The acade-media use it to destroy personal lives and relationships or connivingly in political and socio-cultural discussions—especially in the less-informed social media. Reality existed before CopenPagan Interpretation came into existence!!
That the Western Civilization was (and still is to some extent) distinctly different and separate from the rest of the world of “un-awakened” consciousness is a HISTORICAL fact. The role of the once pagan Augustine of the (3 rd - 4 th Centuries) is unquestionable in baptizing Platonism into Scriptural norms (though he later on completely got out of Platonism). The anchoring of Augustinian philosophy and theology to the Athenian Mars Hill discourse of Rabbi Saul of Tarsus is too obvious. These are “truth-facts” which cannot be denied. The later “quickening” are all Augustinian-- Reformation, Wesleyan and Puritan Revivals, the Two Great Awakenings in America and many others still current. The Western Acae-Media Pagan(ism) – WAMP-the-Ingrate-- does deny all that unconscionably and/or ignorantly. Somebody has to point that out. It is not only a question of “consciousness”, but also of conscience. It is not bigotry, only chivalry. Revisionists hate it. Progressivism/paganism shuns it. The division between “awakening” and “dormancy” or “deadness” is abysmal. The hatred there is REAL but one-way—from the latter to the former.
Philip Benjamin
From: Roland Cichowski <rolandshh@ > Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:13 AM
: Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
Philip, Thank you. At last I think I can begin to perceive your approach.
I agree when you say:
The answer is “yes”. Nothing never existed. Otherwise something cannot exist now. This can be settled only by a degree of rationality.
Perhaps you did not notice my statement in my previous post
…It is the fact that you are here to make this statement, which means that nothingness is not a reality; your presence the presence of your consciousness means a condition of nothingness really does not exist.
So, I think we are saying the same thing here. Therefore the issue is, why do we seem to be disagreeing with one another. I think I can begin to perceive an answer when you say.
What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or LIFE having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce life. LIFE can produce dead matter and life.
If you substitute consciousness for the word LIFE…
(What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or Consciousness having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce Consciousness. Consciousness can produce dead matter and life.)
Then this more or less equates with my view.
Some of the key points: Consciousness having aseity [being sufficient unto its self?] given that I am seeking an explanation for what consciousness is I have to consider if that is possible for my consciousness. Several perspectives arise; if I have an immortal soul, perhaps but I cannot tell this until I die. Hmmm… If you are saying that consciousness has asiety then I think I can agree with that.
How can Impersonal Consciousness produce personal beings? A Personal Aseitous Being is a necessary Reality.
I think we may be agreeing here also. The concept of what I think of as personality might seem not to exist. Yet I feel I have a personality and it seems you do also. It's almost like consciousness, possesing of a certain intangibility. It would also seem to be an important component of conscious. My question is where does it come from, never mind what it is? My answer is that it must lie in the beginning of things. Our divergence seems to come about around here somehow.
For you that beginning would seem to come from a material reality. For me that does not make sense. Given that our understanding of a physical reality cannot explain (as yet) how consciousness can arise from what you call dead matter. At best it is consigned to the status of an epi-phenomenon. I have been considering if dead matter can arise from life or consciousness. In terms of the nature of the ultimate reality that is our existence. I can’t help thinking that if that ultimate reality is consciousness then it is capable of producing an experience of what you call dead matter. It becomes a question of if we can see through the true nature of our experience of things. What is an experience? We automatically take our experience of things as given. There is plenty to suggest that there is something wrong with this from a physical perspective. Most prominent is the issue of how colour qualia arises. If it arises in what we call consciousness that works it is something we paint upon our experience and then put it out there and call it a reality. If we believe it is out there as a separate quality in a physical universe then we have a problem explaining how it appears in our experience.
Plenty to think about.
PS. Dare I ask why your posts are filled, perhaps, so vehemently with all of the Augustinian, pagan, Wamp stuff. It may have given me a wrong impression of you. I don’t understand what it has to do with consciousness.
Thanks for the deep thoughts. Roland
On 16/02/2021 1:40, Philip Benjamin wrote:
Roland:
You ask: “This is the problem when you and others take this sort of attitude. Are you really saying that you can know that anything exists without your consciousness? How can you know that?”
The answer is “yes”. Nothing never existed. Otherwise something cannot exist now. This can be settled only by a degree of rationality. What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or LIFE having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce life. LIFE can produce dead matter and life. Finite goddess of Science is imprecise, imperfect and indefinite. Will any religion or philosophy really answer these questions? Eastern or Greco- Roman mystic religions have come up with all kinds of superstitions and speculations. How can Impersonal Consciousness produce personal beings? A Personal Aseitous Being is a necessary Reality. Augustine was once an erudite, Phoenician pagan of Greco-Roman roots. He was instantly TRANSFORMED through the instrumentality of a child’s song that led him to Romans 13:13 (www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine). He baptized Platonism into Scriptural norms, and sconced it into the foundations laid by Rabbi Saul of Tarsus on Athenian Mars Hill (Acts chapter 17), where the Greco-Roman unknown god was clearly identified as Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) in the Person of the Risen Messiah. That SEPARATED the West from the rest of the PAGAN world of un-awakened consciousness. These are historical facts. There are more histories as Reformation, Wesleyan & Puritan Revivals, Welsh Revival, The Two great Awakenings in America and great awakenings world-wide (Kagawa in Japan, Sadhu Sundar Sing in India etc.). Seemingly, Bohr or the Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism) have never heard of these historical facts!!
Philip Benjamin
Some of my publications:
Nuclear charge dispersion in the fission of 232Th by protons of energy 20–85 MeV
February 2011Canadian Journal of Chemistry 47(2):301-312 DOI: 10.1139/v69-042 Authors: Philip Benjamin et al. Nuclear charge dispersion in the fission of 232Th by protons of energy 20-85 MeV;
P. P. BEN JAM IN, D. A. MARSDEKN~. ,T . PO RILE^, AND L. YAFFE; CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY. VOL. 47, 301-312, 1969 McGill Unrversity, Montreal, Quebec With financial assistance from the Directorate of Chemical Sciences, U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant Nos. AF-AFOSR 62-64 and 489-64.
ELECTROLYTIC COMPLEXATION OF 99mTc ATCONSTANT CURRENT: ITS APPLICATIONS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Philip P. Benjamin, Abbas Rejali and Hymer Friedell Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; J Nucl Med. 1970 Apr;11(4):147-54.
BENJAMIN, Philip P. A rapid and efficient method of preparing 99mTc human serum albumin: its clinical applications. Intern. I. App!. Radiation Isotopes 20:187, 1969.
BENJAMIN, Philip P. J Nucl Med. 1970 Jan;11(1):49-50. Electrolytic complexation of technetium: inhibition by impurities and a recipe for routine preparation.
.
From: Roland Cichowski <rola...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 7:26 PM
To: Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
Heh!
No, Philip, that is NOT just a CopenPagan view. Reality DID NOT exist before Niels Bohr came into existence!!
Neither does yours.
Seriously Philip, just a unsupported assertion from you! Sure you can do better. Where is your evidence, scientifically verified and repeatable evidence? I’m assuming you consider yourself a scientist of some sort.
This is the problem when you and others take this sort of attitude. Are you really saying that you can know that anything exists without your consciousness? How can you know that?
I know that something we call consciousness is here in this moment because I am it and I cannot deny my own presence. I don’t know about yours and am willing to freely admit that. As to what my consciousness experiences really are I will admit I have no way of proving that those experiences are there without me. I know they are there for me, but could be illusory. I assume you know yours are there for you.
Have you ever stopped to consider that if what you perceive as reality does NOT exist without you then everything that you have built and understood by accepting the proposition (without proof) that it DOES, could be wrong? It would block you from understanding a greater reality or what is really causing you to exist. Perhaps you have no need for self-knowledge or awareness. First casualty in your believe system if it should turn out that your version of reality does not exist without you is that what you call the ‘CopenPagan view’, could be right. I can understand how this would be annoying for you but really do you want to risk an existence of ignorance based upon an unprovable assertion?
I prefer to accept for the moment that I do not, one hundred percent, know. What I do know is that the proposition that my daily reality does not exist without me seems to solve more issues than the idea that it does exist without me.
I may get to the end of my journey and discover I am wrong until then I will keep searching. You think you have an answer but it is all based upon an unprovable assertion. Do you accept other unprovable assertions? If not then why would you accept the foundational one upon which you have constructed your whole view of reality when you have no way of proving it; If you have please let me know, seriously I mean it.
From a figment of your imagination called Roland that you are using to try to correct your error.😉
Surprise me by giving me a provable answer, Roland.
On 15/02/2021 6:29, Philip Benjamin wrote:
No, Roland, that is a CopenPagan view. Reality DID exist before Niels Bohr came into existence!!
From: Roland Cichowski <rola...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 7:57 PM
To: Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
Philip, a brief response to:
Reality— for to be REAL-- either exists or it does not, whether anybody looks at it or perceives it is immaterial.
With respect I really do think this is where you are making a crucial error in your thinking.
Of course it is vitally important if anybody looks at it or not. If no one experiences reality how is anyone to know it exists? It would to all intents and purposes not be there. If it were there it might as well not be.
You are not the only one who fails to recognise the importance and contribution of consciousness to the existence of anything at all.
You unwittingly support this when you say:
Nothingness could never have been a REALIY [reality].
That is very true, because if nothingness were a reality then you would not be here to observe it, you are something. Your presence negates the possibility of nothingness. It is the fact that you are here to make this statement, which means that nothingness is not a reality; Your presence the presence of your consciousness means a condition of nothingness really does not exist.
If you can perceive that this is the state of things in regard to nothingness then how can you make the statement that whether anyone looks at the state/condition we call ‘reality’ is immaterial? Consciousness is as relevant to the existence of a condition of reality as it is to the non-existence of nothingness.
To follow you own reasoning. How do you know that there are not many things in existence which you know nothing about because you have not had an opportunity to see/experience them? To all intents and purposes such things do not exist for you. You do not experience them so they are not available to your consciousness. Effectively they do not exist in your version of reality, they are propositions, nothing more. Perhaps they are not even that. If they were suddenly to appear to you then you would believe they exist. it would change your whole perspective on reality. Would you still then believe it was an immaterial as to whether they existed or not?
All the best Roland.
On 13/02/2021 1:40, Philip Benjamin wrote:
[Philip Benjamin]
A quick reply is in order for now.” [Quantum particle’s] existence requires an observer/consciousness (your consciousness)”. That is the CopenPagan Interpretation. Reality— for to be REAL-- either exists or it does not, whether anybody looks at it or perceives it is immaterial. Nothingness could never have been a REALIY. There is of course the possibility of “close sensory approximation”. The mistake is to call Schrodinger Equation a “wave equation” it is a “wavelike equation”. Wave-likeness is not equal to waviness. Absurd/illogical solutions of this equation cannot be accepted, if an artificial paradox such as wave-likeness = waviness is accepted as reality. A particle is a REALITY. A wave-form is another REALITY. Particles do not transform into waves without an external source of very high power!! One physicist once commented that a trained “sage” can see particle as wave in the slit experiment!
The statement that “Addictions often have verisimilar consequences as developmental disabilities” does not mean that the two are the same. There are certain consequences to certain behaviors and beliefs which are verisimilar to developmental disabilities. Imaginations and hallucinations about REALITIES could very well be “addiction” related, addiction to “occultism” or psychedelics for example.
Philip Benjamin
From: Roland Cichowski <rolandshh@ > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
Philip lots of questions long answer, apologies…
Questions:
1 . Property of what? Of space? Of matter? Will not “…the idea of consciousness being the property that expands space” deprive “consciousness” of its ontological nature?
Answer: I don’t think so. If you are looking at the issue of what all things/experiences have in common. Then it could be said that consciousness as ‘being’ is common to them all. Try experiencing anything when you are unconscious. So, the idea that consciousness expands space is consistent with the idea that it is consciousness itself which is responsible for generating everything that you can be aware of. This includes your sense of space and time. Try experiencing reality without time. Such a reality is frozen; doesn’t go anywhere; can’t move forward or backwards. Likewise you will have trouble experiencing anything without space. Without some sort of space there is nothing for anything to be experienced in; nothing for anything to exist in.
2 . Quantum reality? Isn’t it the reality of “quantum (least measurable, quantifiable unit) particles”—PARTICLES nonetheless?
Answer: I am not a quantum physicist but it seems to me from what I have read that a particle is as you say describing the least/smallest possible unit. Its true nature though is not observable by us (when we observe our rugs). We register its presence when we attempt to find what our rugs are made of and you are labelling the material with the word/symbol, ‘particle’. Its existence requires an observer/consciousness (your consciousness). Here you enter the tricky issue of how such particles come into existence. It seems it requires the presence of an observer for them to do so. In terms of our rugs they are what we are using to form the basic components of our rugs. As the weaver it is you placing them to form the reality which your consciousness experiences. I see no inconsistency here. A quantum reality is a way of labelling what is unseen and perhaps unseeable behind our everyday realities; the unseen tiniest components which we build with.
3 . Isn’t the PHYSICAL reality that of “ Wave-likeness of real particles” and not the imaginary waviness and the imaginary creation of artificial puzzles and paradoxes?
Answer: sorry you have lost me a bit here. My perspective is that physical reality is an imaginary creation. This would include concepts like paradoxes and puzzles. Like the assumed physical reality itself they could be considered artificial.
4 . “… Many years working closely with people with developmental disabilities taught me this”. Addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex, occultism, sorcery, gambling etc. often have verisimilar consequences as developmental disabilities. Some of the pioneers of quantum physics were addicts, otherwise psychiatrist (& a sorcerer) Carl Jung would not have been a contributing “quantum pioneer”.
Answer: I find this comment disturbing maybe even offensive. I do not perceive the connection between developmental disabilities and addiction to drugs sex etc. as appropriate. Perhaps you have a lack of understanding of what a developmental disability is. It is a process which is not able to follow what you might expect to be its normal path of development. Injury either before or during birth is the most common recognisable cause. The unfolding of the sensory and physical abilities of such an individual is inconsistent or even not present. So their rugs do not make much sense to them. At best they are only slightly comparable to others. Most find it impossible to communicate what they experience to others or even relate to others. Their rugs or reality have become too different to others for them to communicate with others. To describe this in a simple way: If you are born blind you will never to be able to experience colour or visual form in the way others do. You will just hear about this mythical thing called colour and light. However, it will not exist for you, so how to converse with someone about it? What should be of more concern to every individual is the fact that development continues until your physical form disintegrates. Therefore it is possible for each of us to experience loss of bodily control, deprivation of sensory inputs and consequent mental confusion and frustration. How your soul/being would cope with this is something you might not want to find out. A stroke, brain injury, dementia all these things can change your course of development. You appear to be fortunate, so far. As for the developmental paths of addiction you mention. Yes you are able to develop in these directions. Usually people do so because of some unseen mental injury, deprivation, emotional abuse, lack of love and feeling in their lives. All these things can drive a person to drink as they say. The addiction is the result of the flight from the continuation of the pain they are experiencing. Recovering from such abuse and addiction is extremely difficult and many become lost. With respect I think your rug may have many crossed wefts judging from the way you have mixed, judged and divided historical components like Augustine and pagan etc. thought.
5 . “ Understanding of cause and effect and logic”, “individual consciousness seems to have the desire to exist”, “ to exist it needs something to exist in”, “empty space expanding”? These are questions of aseity, causality, origin, meaning (desire), telos etc. which do not belong to the realm of any objective science.
Answer: I think I may agree with you here insofar as what you call objective science exists on/in the rug. Questions of aseity etc. would seem to be with the weaver; you. Therefore I do not understand why you seem to be objecting to exploring them. Perhaps you have convinced yourself that you can find your consciousness in your rug…
6 . In fact all these issues do not deal with the question of “what is consciousness?”, rather they deal with “what an individual is conscious of?” There is the world out there and the world within? An expanding empty space is an oxymoron. So also self-consciousness is another oxymoron when “self” is not real. If self is real and invisible the only candidate available for science today is bio dark-matter (of negligible mass) with its bio dark-matter chemistry, cocreating the resonant “dark” and “light” twins from the moment of conception.
Closed thinking is tunnel vision. It is an established hierarchical, inflexible task based path. Here one does not think about much more than getting routines done. A more spatial, tolerant and relaxed open mode thinking will require breaking ranks with the establishment swamp.
Philip Benjamin
Answer: sorry Philip I have tried to untangle your terminology in the past and find talk of swamps and what is it WAMPs reptilian consciousness etc. confusing and possessing of a tone of angst if not worse. As you say, ‘A more spatial, tolerant and relaxed open mode thinking will…’; the tone of your comments often seem far from tolerant and relaxed so I get confused. Are you part of the establishment? Which establishment do you represent? I do not feel part of any establishment always the outsider. Are you sure you are not in a swamp? How can you tell? I pose these questions sincerely. As for dark matter; have you ever considered the possibility that it is dark because it is in the unformed realm of the weaver/observer? Is it something, which you as a weaver have not yet managed to cast onto the rug? Something that is your attempt to recognise and label the unseen; the part of the puzzle that is uncreated, Jung who you seem to deride, might have called it the unconscious. As such it is that, which we are not conscious of. Your depiction of it as dark matter as opposed to light matter would seem to suggest this. A struggle to bring it into conception, if so I fear you will find there is always a need for the unknown the unseeable.
Interesting and thank you. Roland.
Samiya Illias
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Va-alaikum As-salaam. In all ancient languages, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Latin, Greek and even in English, these terms have their etymological roots in “breeze” and “breath”. The ancients observed that when the last breath was gone, the body was dead, So, they figured out that something invisibly “wind-like” is the life- principle. Had they known about dark-matter and its possible chemistries they could have attributed the “soul or spirit” to the “dark twin”. Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry is indeed taboo today. Because it implies the possibility of “light” and “dark” twin bodies co-created at the moment of conception. That almost sounds like existence of “spirit’ or “soul”.
Definitions are very important here, especially when multicultural studies are involved. English language is nourished and enriched by the Bible (particularly the KJV). The Bible divides the world into heathen (foreign, strange, Gentile) and non-heathen [The Redeemed of Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural)]. The word pagan (pan-Gaia-n, earthling or earth-worshipper) is of more recent origin than KJV. Redemption in the Old Testament and the New Testament is on the principle of “grace” in the cancellation of the universal Death Sentence by the vicarious death of the Sentencer as in Genesis 3:15-19 (the Protoevangelium), which you have also referred to, as the Lamb ordained before and slain from the foundation of the world (1Peter 1:19-20 , Revelation 13:8).
“Not He begets and not He is begotten” of the Koran 112 may be applicable to Adonai (plural) but not the prophetic Incarnation of YHWH (singular) in the form of the Messiah at Bethlehem. Here, Infinity1 + Infinity2 + Infinity3 = 1 Infinity. A unitary deity is a solitary, solipsistic being with no communication with anybody other than oneself possible.
Philip Benjamin
[Samiya Illias]
“Salam alaikum” https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2020/06/draft-all-about-nafs.html Say, "He (is) Allah, the One. Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute. Not He begets and not He is begotten. And not is for Him equivalent any [one]." [Al-Quran 112]. And be not like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget their own nafs... [Al-Quran 59:19]
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to try understand what the nafs is, and where it lies in the human body.
The Quran repeatedly mentions the nafs. Sins are committing injustices against the nafs, and we are warned against making changes in the nafs. Our nafs is removable from our body. It is in pledge. The Quran warns of the loss of the nafs in the Hereafter, and it is described as the most depriving dispossession, the extreme loss!
https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2017/05/human-body-or-soul.html
The Bible and The Quran both inform us that we are made of dust:
[Bible, Genesis 3:19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground, for out of it was thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
[Al-Quran, ar-Rum 30:20] And among His Signs (is) that He created you from dust then behold! You (are) human beings dispersing.
We all know that we have a body that is composed of earthly materials. Religious people generally believe that they are a SOUL that is temporarily staying in the body. Atheists do not believe in the existence of a SOUL.
Jews, Christians and Muslims (People of the Book) shroud and bury the body of their dead. Hindus (Polytheists) burn many of their dead and crush the remaining bones into dust. More on Funeral Rites in References and Further Reading at the end of this post.
From: Philip Benjamin
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Donald Naysmith <don...@cardonconsulting.net>; Caroline Naysmith (Caro...@cardonconsulting.net) <caro...@cardonconsulting.net>
Subject: FW: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
From:
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:22 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
Salam alaikum
So, I think we are saying the same thing here. Therefore the issue is, why do we seem to be disagreeing with one another. I think I can begin to perceive an answer when you say.
What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or LIFE having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce life. LIFE can produce dead matter and life.
Then this more or less equates with my view.
Brent Meeker
Brent
Samiya Illias
Brent Meeker
God is One and Only!
--- H L Mencken, Graveyard of the Gods
Samiya Illias
Samiya Illias
Holy Quran 17:110------------------قُلِ ادْعُوا اللَّهَ أَوِ ادْعُوا الرَّحْمَٰنَ ۖ أَيًّا مَّا تَدْعُوا فَلَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ ۚ وَلَا تَجْهَرْ بِصَلَاتِكَ وَلَا تُخَافِتْ بِهَا وَابْتَغِ بَيْنَ ذَٰلِكَ سَبِيلًاSay, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or [too] quietly but seek between that an [intermediate] way.
John Clark
John Clark
> God is One and Only!
> Praise to Allah
Bruno Marchal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/292fa2bf-82e8-4195-2b8e-184f793c556a%40verizon.net.
Bruno Marchal
On 19 Feb 2021, at 11:43, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:54 PM Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:> God is One and Only!I don't think so, I don't think God is 1, although of course that depends entirely on what "God" means. If God is an omnipotent omniscient mind that created the Universe then God is zero.
But if "God" is a mindless amorphous gray blob, as those (for example religious intellectuals) who are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D say, then there are an infinite number of Gods; although I'm not sure if the magnitude of that infinity is Aleph0 or Aleph1.
> Praise to AllahWhy? Hasn't that guy already received enough praise to last Him until the sun expands into a Red Giant and engulfs the Earth? Seems to me Allah Is addicted to praise, and that's just not healthy for Him or for anybody. If you really love "God" you shouldn't encourage Him in His bad habit.,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv35Xdzj%3DH%3DhWowP4r3vWJFRh_RyJu2BcPKHvYCOBhZS5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
John Clark
>>> God is One and Only!>> But which one and only God?
> None of them, as the only one has no name. That was understood by Plato [blah blah]
Bruno Marchal
On 8 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:[Philip Benjamin]Two best physical theories are quantum mechanics (for the least tiny and probabilistic) and relativity (for the very massive and/or very fast). They currently use fundamentally and conceptually different kinds of mathematics. They both have excellent predictive powers, but they use radically different mathematical language.Mathematical “constructs” are not necessarily physical realities.
Space-time is a convenient and meaningful mathematical construct.
In physical theories, when equations begin to yield infinites, infinite regress, parallel worlds etc. best theories are, misrepresent and misalign physical realities.
Then new and more “scientifically” commonsensical ideas are needed, such as Wave-likeness ≠ Waviness. Newton’s assumptions in his mathematical equations may be wrong. Time itself may be three dimensional.https://medium.com/@deepbreadth/newton-was-wrong-so-was-einstein-and-thats-okay-a5ad4dedfe26 January 17, 2018 https://www.specularium.org/3d-time XPhilip BenjaminFrom: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 2:34 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 1:02 PM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:> If photons never rest, they never have a rest mass either!Exactly.> It's only an assumption that photons have rest mas = 0. A mass at an indeterminate decimal place of RELATIVELY negligible value is almost the same as zero rest mass. The gravitational ‘lensing’ of light has thus a “commonsensical” explanation!Newton's theory doesn't work, If photons have no rest mass they wouldn't be bent by a gravitational field at all in Newton's theory, and Even if they did have a rest mass they would be bent by a gravitational field HALF as much as Einstein says they will be, and experimental observation proves that Einstein's prediction was right and Newton's prediction was wrong. And if you're waiting for common sense explanations for modern physical puzzles you're going to be waiting a very long time> Marxism is not merely politics. It is claimed to be “science” and [...]Philip, in 2021 being an anti-Marxist is a bit like being a anti-Viking, there is just no future in either.John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZQ2_esTLYKCQ8mXF_15BEaQ9my%3DzSGm7q%3DwLDgyKH8A%40mail.gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704C732D6B2D2E27D2F59C7A88F9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
John Clark
> In Cantor’s mind, GOD was the complete infinities of all sets.
> The definition of God by the greek was “the ultimate reality”,
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
There is a formal fallacy when the reasoning or inferences are incorrect or when there is any violation of the rules of cognitive actions within the argumentation. Recognizing logical fallacies of any general procedure is useful for the correction of beliefs based on that procedure. One has to stick with the same frame of reference in any reasonable argument. Integers and points belong to two different frames of reference. To bring them into the same reference frame is a logical fallacy.
“Logic and critical thinking skills are a disappearing art form today. As a result of postmodern, relativistic philosophies, in their place are often contradictory and foolish arguments.” John Loeffler.
Philip Benjamin
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 4:14 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:50 AM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Infinity1 + Infinity2 + Infinity3 = 1 Infinity.
Not necessarily. Not if "1 Infinity" Is the number of integers and "infinity2" or "infinity3" is the number of points on a line.
.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
That is begging the question (petitio principii).
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 10:55 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
God is One and Only!
On 18-Feb-2021, at 8:50 PM, Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
“Not He begets and not He is begotten” of the Koran 112 may be applicable to Adonai (plural) but not the prophetic Incarnation of YHWH (singular) in the form of the Messiah at Bethlehem. Here, Infinity1 + Infinity2 + Infinity3 = 1 Infinity. A unitary deity is a solitary, solipsistic being with no communication with anybody other than oneself possible.
.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
This an example of the fallacy of irrelevance, an irrelevant conclusion ( ignoratio elenchi is Latin for ''ignoring refutation'' or missing the point). It is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument (that may or may not be logically valid and sound), where the conclusion fails to address the issue in question. What the biospherical ‘light matter’ is to astrophysical light matter is what Bio dark-matter is to astrophysical dark-matter. Where matter exists, chemistry exists. The source of biophotons is still not clearly settled. The weak interactions between ‘light’ and ‘dark’ chemical bonds (spin governed particle configurations) could very well be the source.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 1:55 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
It's not "taboo". It's non-existent because we don't know what dark-matter is. It's like saying the genetics of Big Foot are taboo because we're not studying them. There are an infinite number to "possibilities"
that are not being studies for the simple reason that nobody thinks they're worth the time to study. So dark-matter chemistry is a wide open field, Phil. Go for it.
Brent
Telmo Menezes
John Clark
> One has to stick with the same frame of reference in any reasonable argument.
< Integers and points belong to two different frames of reference. To bring them into the same reference frame is a logical fallacy.
.
Brent Meeker
On 19 Feb 2021, at 06:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 2/18/2021 8:54 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
God is One and Only!
But which one and only God? Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva, Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus?
--- H L Mencken, Graveyard of the Gods
None of them, as the only one has no name.
That was understood by Plato and the Neoplatoncian, but the human want to give it a name. At least “zeus” naming has the advantage of not being taken seriously, unlike “primary physical universe”, which is a notion which looks less naïve, but is still used with magic to eliminate the person in the big picture, at least by some people.
Brent Meeker
[Philip Benjamin]
This an example of the fallacy of irrelevance, an irrelevant conclusion ( ignoratio elenchi is Latin for ''ignoring refutation'' or missing the point). It is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument (that may or may not be logically valid and sound), where the conclusion fails to address the issue in question. What the biospherical ‘light matter’ is to astrophysical light matter is what Bio dark-matter is to astrophysical dark-matter. Where matter exists, chemistry exists.
Brent
The source of biophotons is still not clearly settled. The weak interactions between ‘light’ and ‘dark’ chemical bonds (spin governed particle configurations) could very well be the source.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 1:55 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
It's not "taboo". It's non-existent because we don't know what dark-matter is. It's like saying the genetics of Big Foot are taboo because we're not studying them. There are an infinite number to "possibilities" that are not being studies for the simple reason that nobody thinks they're worth the time to study. So dark-matter chemistry is a wide open field, Phil. Go for it.
BrentOn 2/18/2021 7:50 AM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry is indeed taboo today. Because it implies the possibility of “light” and “dark” twin bodies co-created at the moment of conception. That almost sounds like existence of “spirit’ or “soul”.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DM6PR11MB46914A24F2CC3546A4E86C62A8849%40DM6PR11MB4691.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
Brent Meeker
Brent
Telmo Menezes
Brent
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6995d5c5-9af2-fc4c-d296-67d7426bf02c%40verizon.net.
Philip Benjamin
[John Clark]
You are entirely right to sate: “400 years ago Galileo found a way of converting one reference frame to another that worked very well as long as the speeds involved we're not extremely large, and when they were Einstein found a way 100 years ago that could be used to develop an entirely consistent way of converting one reference frame into another that also conformed with all known experimental results”.
There is no logical fallacy here. The fallacy arises when categories are mixed in the two separate frames of reference. “Mixing categories” is not “converting reference-frames”. Infinity1 (odd numbers) + Infinity2 (even numbers) + Infinity3 (odd + even) = 1 Infinity (numbers). The essence here is “numbers”. To go back to Samiya Illias comment on Koranic eternal solitary, solipsistic Unitary-ness vs Scriptural (Augustinian) Triunity-ness, One essence three Persons of the aseitous Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) is eternally Communicative and is no logical fallacy.
Philip Benjmain
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:27 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:13 AM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Clark
> You are entirely right to sate: “400 years ago Galileo found a way of converting one reference frame to another that worked very well as long as the speeds involved we're not extremely large, and when they were Einstein found a way 100 years ago that could be used to develop an entirely consistent way of converting one reference frame into another that also conformed with all known experimental results”. There is no logical fallacy here. The fallacy arises when categories are mixed in the two separate frames of reference.
> “Mixing categories” is not “converting reference-frames”. Infinity1 (odd numbers) + Infinity2 (even numbers) + Infinity3 (odd + even) = 1 Infinity (numbers). The essence here is “numbers”.
> To go back to Samiya Illias comment on Koranic [blah blah]
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
The premise “If "1Infinity" Is the number of odd integers and "2infinity" is the number of even integers and 3infinity" is the number of points” is actually “Infinity1 (odd integers) + Infinity2 (even integers) + Infinity3 (odd + even) = 1 Infinity (numbers). Points do not mix with numbers in the same frame of reference.
As for Muhammad, he is a historical fact: 300-700 years of domination in Western Europe (from Italy to Spain), still dominant in Eastern and central Europe and the old Byzantine Empire, 1000 years in India (eventually the British Empire stopped it, India became free from Britain, probably never could have from Muslim rulers). There was indeed a “change of consciousness” by forced conversions.
That is not what “transformed” the civilized and erudite Phoenician pagan Augustine (of Greco-Roman roots). It was a free and willing obedience to what he considered a “call” (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine), through the instrumentality of a child’s song. Science cannot ignore the facts of history. Augustinian transformation of individual consciousness contributed to creating an atmosphere for science and technology to develop. Islam forced conversion of mathematicians and scientists and artists of an Augustinian ethos. In fact European nations would not have explored new ocean routes to the East, if the Muslim rulers had not closed the land routes to the East. (Most probably India might still have been under Muslim rule). There is a noticeable historical difference between “Koranic change” and “Scriptural Quickening or Regeneration” of individual consciousness.
Nafs is an Arabic word used in the Quran, literally meaning “self“. I is translated as “psyche”, “ego” or “soul”. In the Quran, the word is used in both the individualistic (verse 2:48) and collective sense (verse 4:1). The soul/spirit in the Scriptures is always individualistic. As I have mentioned in the previous post ancient languages such as Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin have soul/spirit derived from the roots of Breath/breeze. When the last breath was gone, life ceased. So the ancients considered soul/spirit of life as something akin to wind. Had they known bio dark matter with its chemistry, most likely they might have used that instead!!!
Philip Benjamin
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 12:32 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 9:42 AM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv06ghhZdaxDrPQoWKQtKpstoXKhFNgA9FhwCg1_Ttooqg%40mail.gmail.com.
Brent Meeker
When the last breath was gone, life ceased. So the ancients considered soul/spirit of life as something akin to wind.
Brent
John Clark
>Points do not mix with numbers
> in the same frame of reference.
> So the ancients considered soul/spirit of life as [blah blah]
John Clark
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Pythagoreans also must have had a subtle sense of humor! Thanks for your encouraging note in the last post of “go for it [bio dark-matter chemistry]”. Why don’t you come along?
Whether the inquisitive “ancients” or the hard-nosed “moderns”, all have a common enemy “death” [the Sentence of Death]. The responses of Pagans and Non-pagans are poles apart. It is falsely attributed to “Left” & “Right” in politics. Augustine the pagan (pre-transformation) was ignorant or indifferent of after-life, Augustine the non-pagan (post-transformation) was absolutely confident and joyful of after-life. That was a turning point in Western history and also indirectly for the rest of the pagan histories. WAMP-the-Ingrate is the stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust!!! WAMP = Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism).
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 3:44 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds")
On 2/20/2021 12:22 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
When the last breath was gone, life ceased. So the ancients considered soul/spirit of life as something akin to wind.
That's why the Pythagoreans forbade eating beans.
Brent .
Bruno Marchal
On 15 Feb 2021, at 07:29, 'scerir' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it.
scerir
Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s. But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing more than a language. Efficient?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38CEE2A0-2221-4E58-AB3C-9A8884D20191%40ulb.ac.be.
scerir
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/223933153.248576.1615305528353%40mail1.libero.it.
Bruno Marchal
On 9 Mar 2021, at 16:58, 'scerir' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s.
But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing more than a language. Efficient?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/223933153.248576.1615305528353%40mail1.libero.it.
scerir
[scerir] But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing more than a language. Efficient?
[Bruno] If it is a language, the question is what does that language refers too, and what or who does the conversation (in that language).
I would mean: A general, natural "syntax" (or "operating system" maybe?). What does that "syntax" refers to? Good question.
Well, I think that "something" for sure exists. Something knowable. I'm a realist. Everett III was a realist. At least, his interpretation was realist. Schroedinger thought his waves were real.
So, I think that the supposed "syntax" could refer to real things, let us say "states" or Ur-objects or physical informations or knowable relations, or something else. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00676265
But are those "states" real? David Finkelstein wrote: "In quantum theory we represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical reality on which they act." Right. But isn't that - precisely - a "syntax"? And can Finkelstein exclude the very existence of that "hypothetical reality" on which operators act?
Bruno Marchal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1132548789.189923.1615396769469%40mail1.libero.it.
Brent Meeker
On 3/11/2021 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> When doing theology (aka metaphysics) with the scientific method, it
> is better to not commit oneself in any ontological assumption at the start
exists as a starting point.
Brent
Bruno Marchal
But your way to express this is misleading, as “all of arithmetic” is not an arithmetical notion, and it would need a much more string theory like set theory to be made precise, and this, typically is not part of my assumption.
So I assume only, beyond classical logic the non-logical usual axioms:
1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y))
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
This is the minimal amount of things that we have to assume to make sense of “Digital Mechanism”. I have no doubt you do believe in them, as they are used in all physical theories.
I called that theory RA (Robinson Arithmetic), but his standard name in the literature is Q. It is a sub theory of practically any conceivable theory. It is even believed by formalist, as the definition of what is a formalism is as powerful as Q.
I can even be dispensed of classical logic, and use the (entirely given) following theory (of combinators):
1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
2) If x = y then xz = yz
3) If x = y then zx = zy
4) Kxy = x
5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
I can use even weaker theory, but then they are no more finitely axiomatisable, and requires (like PA and ZF and most Löbian machines) some scheme of axioms. I might come back on the someday.
Bruno
>
> Brent
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.