... Since it is based on an entirely different scientific paradigm -- ABC doesn t necessarily have to follow the mathematical rules of prediction formalized byMessage 1 of 101 , Dec 31 11:22 PMView SourceOn Nov 30, 2007, at 11/30/078:06 AM, yanniru@... wrote:
Please explain how ABC predicts anything. I read that you say it does. But predictions normally are mathematical and you have no math in ABC. So how do you do it?Since it is based on an entirely different scientific paradigm -- ABC doesn't necessarily have to follow the mathematical rules of prediction formalized by reductive material science.Actually, however, the math in ABC is based on the fundamental fractal topological geometry inherent in the singularity and its spinergy -- which is perfectly in accord with GR. Since the algebraic formula still is E=mc^2 -- which is based on Maxwell's equations (with c, t, etc., different values in each successive field) -- these laws apply on each fractal phase level as cosmogenesis proceeds. Thus, ALL fractal involved radiant hyperspace and metric space energy fields, including the ZPE fields in the Planck volume, and the gravitational field are electrodynamic or electrostatic in nature and governed by the laws of electricity, i.e., resonance, harmony, frequency/amplitude modulation, Maxwell laws, etc., etc.Since ABC also postulates the initial higher order fractally involve cosmogenetic fields that underlie the lower order physical fields --(which reductive science can observe and devise falsifiable theories) -- anything that such science proves to exist and determines its properties, is already predicted by the fundamental laws inherent in the spinergy and reflected in the electrodynamics of the initial cosmic field structures that are ubiquitously analogous in every "singularity" source of ZPE throughout the universe.This is the same way that cosmogenesis and the holographic constructive information encapsulated in the spinergy origin of all the fields and reflected in the interference patterns on their surfaces -- predicts all the fundamental particles, their properties and symmetries as well as the forms of all the galaxies, stars, planets, etc., in the reconstructed cyclic cosmos. Remember, in any continuous cyclic process -- what was before, is predictive of what comes after.BTW, Here's a copy of a letter from another forum on the subject: [jcs-online] Re: On Matter, Energy and Information that refutes a previous comment that "all scientists think (my ABC theory is) crackpot pseudo science":On Nov 30, 2007, at 11/30/073:44 AM, RLG wrote:[Leon Maurer writes]How can you prove that? What does "not sociodependent"mean? How can consciousness be the result of physicalevents? Especially, if we consider that the "physicalevents" are based solely on material processes that, inthemselves, can have no consciousness (awareness, will,qualia, etc.). So, how can a process or an eventexperience qualia, consider and compare ideas, or makea decision? To apply subjectivity to objectivity isconflating the perceiver with the perception, alongwith the object of perception. Where's the logic or thescience in that?These questions Leon raises are excellent and have got me pondering the issues again in a deeper way. Like my own conjectures, Leon's ideas are speculative and under development and I look forward to future postings he has on them. When everyone who seriously ponders the mystery of consciousness steps back and really takes a hard and humble look at the questions, in a deep sense it forces everyone back to square one. At the basic level we do not know what kind of thing consciousness is. What is it that is experiencing and what is it that is being experienced? Is it the activity of the brain that is being experienced or is experience something beyond the brain that the brain `swims' in? (Like the brain is making waves in a phenomenal field somewhere else). The hard problem is a real and legitimate scientific and philosophical problem. We are being dishonest to say otherwise because, when it comes right down to it, none of us have the answer to it. The same goes for the qualia problem. Personally, I am dissatisfied with all the alleged solutions put forward on the hard problem and the qualia problem. To date, there is no solution to the explanatory gap and the candidate solutions completely fail. The failure is due to a categorical problem with the epistemological concepts being used and both the hard problem and qualia problem cannot be solved by a purely conceptual analysis. The ontological concepts we intellectually create divides existence into conscious existence and non-conscious existence: matter and changing geometric patterns versus qualia and awareness. Then the intellect tries to resolve the differences by postulating identity. That is, it claims the conscious existence is the non-conscious existence: the matter and changing geometric patterns are the qualia and awareness. But this approach is clearly a failure since it is self-contradictory: it is claiming that ~X=X which is logically impossible. Tragically, many people have advocated this impossibility as a solution. Others have tried to salvage identity by claiming that there is no consciousness at all: just as science has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is no ether, so some have suggested that there is no consciousness since matter and changing geometric patterns are unconscious. But the existence of consciousness is an obvious fact. Panpsychism offers a possible way out but it seems to lack a model. So, what is needed is a model that recognizes both conscious existence and non-conscious existence and that means new physics is needed to explain them both. A plausible model like this can be incorporated into string theory. If phenomenology is something that does not reside inside ordinary 3-space, but resides outside of it in the other spatial dimensions of string theory, then consciousness can be something different from ordinary matter and information and yet be linked to it directly (since the string fields that make up matter vibrate in these other dimensions and brain patterns are necessarily reflected in those other dimensions). In other words, the mind does not have a physical substrate and it is not encoded in any of the stuff of the ordinary dimensions people experience. Because phenomenology resides in an unseen dimensional space, there is no neural basis for consciousness nor is consciousness the result of physical events in ordinary 3-space. Instead, there are only correlations between brain events in ordinary 3-space and their subjective counterparts in the unseen dimensional space. This kind of approach, radical as it may sound, solves both the aforementioned ontological and epistemological problems in a clean and elegant way. It does require that consciousness is a fundamental property of existence but that is a reasonable price to pay since it provides a general model.
From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
Sent: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] energy/time and thought (was - Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything)
On Nov 29, 2007, at 11/29/077:27 AM, yanniru@... wrote:
Do you realize that all your criticism of neurology also applies to your theory?
And even more so as you have no evidence that your very high frequency fields have enough structure to store memories.
In addition you have never explained how low frequency EM fields in the physical brain can couple to hyperspace or the very high frequency fields of your theory. So your theory has tremendous gaps of explanation. It is very incomplete.Of course... Since, from a conventional scientific POV, there is no way that the initial fractally involved coenergetic fields of cosmos, or their analogs reflected in the ZPE fields of the pre quantum Planck space -- can be directly observed or measured using any of the instruments of physics. Therefore, it cannot be falsified like other reductive materialistic theories.But, nevertheless, based on its initial assumptions starting with the "singularity" of original GR theory and using the non renormalized Maxwell equations, we can easily deduce the emanation and fractal involution of the initial higher order cosmic fields, and their electrodynamic properties -- until they break symmetry and generate and empower all the fundamental particles, that follow the E8 symmetry which perfectly reflects the fractal geometry of cosmogenesis [see links (1) and (2) in my post below]. Thus, there are no gaps in"explanation" of the ABC theory that I can see. Especially, since it *predicts* all the valid conclusions and observations of quantum theory, string theory, dark matter cosmology, holographic paradigm, implicate and explicate orders, morphogenetic fields, etc. -- and *explains* all the hard problems of qualia, non local consciousness, brain mind binding, storage, transmission and perception of long term memory, cosmic structural and evolutional memory, etc., etc., etc.
OTOH, neurological explanations, for example of how visual images are stored, are complete if not experimentally verified.
See http://www.egocreanet.it/contributi/scienceofquality4.pdf for such a theory.
In essence this theory claims that adaptive phase resonance in the structure of the eye, obtains four signals that retain all image information, which are then processed by homodyne detection as a function of space and time, which are then holographically reconstructed at the back of the brain; where comparisons to image patterns stored neurologically in memory are made.There are so many speculations and assumptions in this theory, that it would be a waste of energy to argue against its conclusions. Especially since it offers no cogent argument of how the holographic images are reconstructed in the back of the brain, or how the comparisons are made to supposed image patterns stored neurologically in memory.There is also no evidence that memory is stored in the brain, nor is there any scientifically valid theory of how the neurology could retain long term memories -- even if there was some means to store them that as part of the neural meat or even their EM fields.In any event, even if it were possible (which I can't imagine), there is no scientific way of observing the actual storage of a memory in the brain -- whose electrochemical activities and processes are entirely volatile and reversible. Therefore, all such materialistically biased theories are totally nonsensical from my bottom up fractally involved coenergetic (electrodynamic phase conjugate resonant) field point of view...Thus, ABC theory logically indicates that holographic information of consciousness can only be stored long term, and detected and interpreted by zero point consciousness -- as wave interference patterns modulated on higher frequency-energy phase order radiative fields... Since, only such fields could have an image retentive lifetime (due to their faster than light velocity carrier frequencies) stable enough to retain long term and archetypal memories that are older than the lifetime of the neural cells (that initially transformed these images) -- which have been replaced several times between birth and death of the individual brain.In ABC theory, the brain is not necessary for the consciousness to directly access such long term memories. The brain only reflects the emotional response to them and processes the sensory images and the efferent energies of attentive or subliminal willful intent to move muscles, or activate the autonomic endocrine system, etc.. That is all that the fMRI studies can *see*.So, I'd be interested in seeing the fMRI pictures of a trained meditator's brain when the subject is in the deep silence state of samadhi meditation and directly perceiving the pure reflected light of cosmic consciousness -- without any other mental experiences or emotional response. I'm almost certain it would verify the validity of the ABC premises and conclusions -- since the fMRI could only register the subliminal neural activities of autonomic life support systems.
You see that theory uses many of the same words you use, but the words have real meaning in terms of known brain neurology and signal processing. Your theory is rather empty in comparison."Known brain neurology" is still nothing more than materialistic assumptions based on *indirect* measurement of neural activity, either electrically or visually (fMRI). Obviously, signal processing on the physiochemical biological level has no relationship to the storage and transmission of modulated image information on and through coenergetic radiant fields. Such image transmission network systems, based on fundamental cyclic laws built into the original spin, function solely in accord with the laws of electricity in conjunction with phase conjugate adaptive resonance processes -- that must operate across the boundaries of multidimensional phase space... Since, all ABC fields (throughout all of hyperspace and configuration space) are generated from ubiquitously entangled zero-point spin-momentum or reflected "singularities"... And are, fundamentally, Absolute SPACE in infinitely variable modes of vibrational motion. This enables the universe to be a
IDM is not an empty theory. But in my opinion, it just amounts to pattern recognition and there are many ways the brain could do pattern recognition. From fMRI studies, pattern recognition appears to be almost on a single neuron basis- no need for the complex math of IDM. Even the philosophy of IDM is weak as it assumes that all processes in nature are isomorphic.I agree... Since, as I see it, the IDM theory is totally derivative and based on the cyclic laws inherent in the initial state of the cosmos prior to the big bang and the subsequent fractal involution of the essentially holographic initial fields of consciousness. Unfortunately, since the theory starts with the fractal geometry after symmetry breaking on the physical plane, it has a totally materialistic bias -- since it cannot see beyond the origin of material forms to the indeterminacies (and asymmetries) introduced by conflictive cosmic consciousness once separated into the initial 9 individual zero-points of higher consciousness at the third cosmic logos -- who might interpret overall ideas from different points of view. But, this takes us far beyond any scientific, mathematical or psychological theories that any of us finite mind-beings can come up with. ;-)In any event, I question if any sort of "pattern recognition" in the brain has any relevance in explaining the cause and nature of consciousness or the mechanisms of mind or memory information storage, its transmission, and its manipulation by consciously intentional thought processes -- all of which are very simply and directly explained by ABC. (Ref: my letter today, Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: Scientists restore nerve sensation from amputated limb in chest)Leon Maurer
From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
Sent: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] energy/time and thought (was - Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything)
On Nov 28, 2007, at 11/28/075:18 AM, Chris Lofting wrote:
BTW Leon - the interest of IDM in memory is in the requirement forself-referencing in the neurology to implement the XOR operator where it isthat operator that makes things 'clear' and allows for, sets down the basicsof, a rich associative memory system (XOR + indeterminacy elicitswave-interference patterns that can serve as 'all is connected' memory) -this leads into energy conservation through memory compression/decompression(again using the XOR operator)I don't see how that explains in any way how and where the memory is stored, transmitted to and accessed directly by subjective consciousness. Also, it gives us no information about how the "associative memory" works, or how the image interference patterns are detected, reconstructed, interpreted and perceived as 3-dimensional light images, discriminated as to color and tone, etc., by subjective consciousness.Therefore, IDM leaves us perfectly in the dark as to the true physical and metaphysical nature of objective reality, or how both consciousness and matter originated or interrelate with each other informationally and coenergetically. In spite of its presumption of having a meta-ontology, it cannot, by reductive inferential analysis alone, determine the actual ontology of universal origin, and therefore, cannot step outside of its purpose (in explaining meaning), to use the indirect assumptions of neuroscience to explain the origins of either consciousness or matter or determine the physics of how the neurology actually works in processing the information of consciousness.Accordingly, IMHO, the assumption that memory storage or self referencing occurs "in the neurology" is an entirely false view... Since there is no likelihood that the neurology's material substance or their associated EM fields generated by their chemistry, during volatile processing of sensory or thought information, can remain in stable configurations for any substantial period of time -- so as to accommodate any extended or long term memories.This would require, most complexly, the encoding of memory as semi-permanent chemical changes in fixed molecules within the neural cells, such as those in the DNA -- or, far more simply, the storage of memory information as wave interference patterns on electrodynamic fields that have a frequency-energy phase order much higher (thus, longer lasting) than the spectrum of the volatile EM fields produced in the brain... Which, incidentally, changes its entire physiochemical structure within a period of seven years or less. So, where, and in what form of the neurology, could memories earlier than that time be stored? fMRI studies, which can only follow real time processing in the brain can give us no idea how that processing actually works. All of that being the speculation of neuroscientists based on ex-vitro physical and chemical analysis -- which is entirely useless. They still haven't figured out what the "grains of sand" found in the dead pineal gland do.Since there is, actually, no evidence of how such long term memory information can be stored in the brain, or that consciousness is an epiphenomena of neural complexity, and since such higher order fields are not restricted by any scientific theory -- the latter possibility of memory storage in higher order electrodynamic hyperspace fields is the only realistic alternative... Especially, in light of the current mainstream scientific findings related to ZPE, entanglement, strings, M-branes, axions, tachyons, dark matter, etc., etc. See: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.htmlIf such is the case, the mind-memory fields, can only be analogs of the higher order fields of ZPE in the Planck phase space -- that are, themselves, analogs of the higher order dimensions of hyperspace surrounding all organic forms -- which, in turn, are analogs of the initial fractally involved universal fields... As I've pictured them in my ABC field theory of cosmogenesis (1).This fractal geometric transformation from chaos (complexity) to order (simplicity) to chaos, etc, etc. -- in endless octaval cycles on successive inner dimensions or planes of hyperspace reality (2) -- is the basis of a holographic universe where the ZPE fields empowering all the fundamental quantum particles are generated from the zero-point "singularity" that is reflected ubiquitously throughout all configuration spacetime... Keep in mind, that fractal involution of the initial cosmic fields do not stop -- even after the third iteration and the breaking of symmetry, when the involution/evolution continues on the lower order physical spacetime field's surfaces, ad infinitum. So, even a galaxy has its own set of fractally involved hyperspace fields particular to itself, as does the sun and the Earth, etc,With such fields, permeating and surrounding the entire brain-body (3), carrying all the information of long term and archetypal memories -- it becomes obvious that non local perceptive consciousness (localized awareness), as well as entangled self referenced consciousness (global awareness, will, etc.) must be the inherent characteristics of the zero-point origins of those hyperspace fields.Thus, MEMORY, per se, is stored in such higher order fields (as fractal involutional parts of the overall MIND field) that are entirely separate from the brain's neurology... Although, interconnected with their EM fields by a process of "phase conjugate adaptive resonance" -- and directly perceived, controlled and guided subjectively by zero-point consciousness -- either attentive, inattentive/subliminal, or instinctive/autonomic -- through learned pathways in the malleable brain's transformative neural network.The brain -- acting solely as a modifiable transponder, switcher, channeler, between subjective consciousness (awareness, will, etc.) and objective mind, memory, neuromuscular system, sensory organs, etc. -- being the modifiable interface between consciousness, mind, memory and the physical body, senses and outer world.In essence, we each are that zero-point center of individual consciousness associated with the overall highest order (spiritual) energy field surrounding our entire body (3)... With the mind, memory, brain Body fields on different dimensions or phase orders of spacetime, being simply the tools we use to interface with the environment, and which we are individually responsible to feed and maintain as long as the body can survive.All else follows -- including IDM and the sciences and philosophies needed to explain it all. ;-)The only thing none of it can explain, however, is the meaning of life itself -- which only our entangled zero-point center of universal consciousness can know subjectively -- without any explanation possible... Although, we can draw symbolic diagrams of what we envision...Like what Lao Tse possibly saw (4) ... (And you too -- if you can climb the inner seven step ladder, and see the light in the dark or hear the voice in the silence. ;-)LeonRef:P.S. T.S.Eliots "The Hollow Men" and the "shadow", as quoted on your web site could very well refer to the *real man* composed of bubbles within bubbles within bubbles of nothing but empty space. ;-)
Please explain how ABC predicts anything. I read that you say it does. But predictions normally are mathematical and you have no math in ABC. So how do you doMessage 101 of 101 , Jan 1, 2008View SourcePlease explain how ABC predicts anything. I read that you say it does. But
predictions normally are mathematical and you have no math in ABC. So how do
you do it?
>>>>>>>>>>>As you drive down the road how to you know without using a computer how much
pressure to apply to a brake pedal since all knowledge must be stated in
mathematical terms. The reality is that math does not play that much of a
role in normal life. I will grant that the behavior is mathematical, but
humans use fuzzy math and fuzzy estimates which are more heuristic than 2=2.
Human thinking is more like calculus without the numbers.
Math is delusional logic system used to define and defend the world view of
the that person doing the calculations. Math is a fun system to play with
but it is important to note that mathematical models are not necessarily
true just because it has numbers in it.
Your aunt mails you a check for one thousand dollars for your birthday. You
deposit the check and then go on a spending adventure with your credit card,
A month later you find that the check bounces and you now owe a thousand