In a message dated 03/10/02 2:11:50 AM, bri_mue@...
>Danie: ""bilocation" and why does she discount it? I guess
> she believes bilocations are not "real". Why aren't they "real"?"
>Bri.: Bilocations is a myth, but out-of-body experiences or OBE's are
>"real" and there not the slightest reason why a person who rejects
>the theory of the astral body should deny th.eir reality. And the same
>counts for "remote" viewing.
What scientific proof do you have that "bilocation" (whatever that means) is
>However it is not "something" going "out there," and if Daniel
>understood something about the Ganzfeld theorie in spite that he
>name drops that term, he would understand the above, but obviously he
Could you offer references from the Ganzfeld theory and explain what you
"understand " about it that "proves' that you're denial of "something going
on out there" has any scientific validity -- other than being just your
biased opinion or guess. You might also, if you are looking for scientific
evidence to back up your denial, explain the mechanism of "entanglement" or
"action at a distance" of split photons -- that quantum physicists still
cannot explain -- even with the recent CERN experiment that "proved" such
"entanglement" at great distances is fact.
Without a consistent (with relativity and quantum theories) topological
and geometric "Unified Feld" theory, based on ZPE (such as M-brane theory) --
any such "material" or 'physical" explanation would have no scientific
>For example Theosophy also claims: "Each MONAD is a mirror of every
>other. They are immortal centers of force"
>As stated before, this is dualism at best.One is not talking here
>about ordinary force but about a special form of it that is not
>recognized by physicists, a spiritual "force."
What makes such a statement "dualism"? And why is dualism an invalid
approach to logical deduction from fundamental "principles" -- that also
cannot be "proven" to be a wrong view of reality? The field structure of the
monad has been well explained in my theory of ABC -- since any field
emanating from an infinite energy source in the zero-point must necessarily
follow the form of dual fields within a surrounding containment field that
together are a trinity. Since the zero-point is everywhere, all such primary
fields would be "mirrors of each other." Also, their twin inner fields
(Buddhi-Manas) which are "functional" on the mental planes, would of
necessity, as the root of all involutionary derivative fields, be
representative of all subsequent dualities on the material-physical planes.
This does not, however, deny their fundamental unity within the trinity. As
HPB said "The Universe is "both" empty and full, one and many" -- and thus, a
fundamental duality within a unity.
>The most obvious objection to this argument is that there is no such
>thing as such "force," and we are back to some form of materialism
That says nothing. "Obvious" to whom? As far as I can see, it is a denial
based on no evidence or logical analysis. Therefore, just your opinion -- for
whatever that's worth.
>If the expression, "force" here really referred to energy of some
>kind, it would have to be quantifiable. It would then be entirely
>possible to select a unit of this energy, and it would not be absurd
>to ask such questions as "Into how much heat or electricity can the
>force now present in this person being converted?" It would be
>possible to convert spiritual "force" into kinetic or chemical energy
>and it would in principle be possible to establish appropriate
>transformation formulas. Evidently, Dallas or Leon would regard such
>transformation formulas as a possibility.
Why should such a force or "energetic field of action" be "quantifiable" in
terms of "material" forces which are limited only to what is measurable by
means of material instruments? If there is another theory of unified forces
and energy fields, based on "proven" zero-point energy perturbations, as
postulated scientifically (through mathematical analysis) in
Suprstring/M-brane theories (or as theorized in my own theory of coenergetic
fields rooted in zero-point "spinergy") -- then such "transformational
formulas" may certainly be possible.
>Let us ignore this objection and grant for the sake of discussion
>that "force" her refers to something that is real but not physical.
>This would not be of any help to the supporters of the argument. The
>conservation principle has been shown by physicists to hold only for
>physical energy. If there is a nonphysical energy, we have no right
>whatever to say that the conservation principle applies to it.
>Incidentally, if we allow the concept of this "force," there would be
>no reason to disallow a concept of "spiritual entropy"; and just as
>usable physical energy is constantly lost, so the same might well be
>true of spiritual energy.
Yes, you can speculate on that... But, the conservation laws are based
solely on physical forces, and, as yet, haven't been shown to be applicable
to the zero-point forces. Then, why should the laws of entropy be applicable
to those forces -- which are, admittedly in some M-brane theories, to be non
"physical" or non metric in physical terms? These higher energy forces --
being of frequencies far higher than any of the forces attributed to the
electromagnetic spectrum, and thus have velocities far greater than that of
"light" -- would necessarily be governed by laws far different from the laws
related to the electromagnetic forces... (As, incidentally, pointed out by
HPB with references to the "coadunate but not consubstantial" "fields" or
planes higher than the physical).
>Even if we waive all these objections, the argument would still prove
>nothing to the point. The conservation of physical energy does not
>guarantee the continued, much less the eternal, existence of
>particular entities. It is quite consistent with the destruction of
>houses, mountains, stars, and of course plants and animal bodies.
>What evidence is there that if our minds were indeed composed of
>spiritual energy, and if this energy were indestructible, that our
>individual minds exist for ever? It appears that versions of the
>argument had already some currency in the eighteenth century, quite a
>long time before the first formulation of conservation principles by
Weak argument -- since the forces we are talking about are not "physical" in
the sense of being measurable with physical instruments. What evidence is
required? The Casimir effect certainly gives adequate evidence that such
zero-point fields exist -- even though non measurable as to their energies
and frequencies. Again, we might point out -- the "physical" conservation
and entropy laws are not applicable to such fields. If the fields of mind,
as zero-point energy fields in the "physical vacuum" are progressively much
higher frequencies (or "point" concentrated) energies than the physical
fields, and the medium through which they propagate is much less resistive --
then they would necessarily have progressively longer lives than the physical
>Astral projection means the same as OBE, and in this sense a person
>who denies the existence of the astral body as I do per above, even
>people can "see" things, and is explained by means of the Gansfeld
>theosoy why, does not deny the existence of astral projections; he
>objects to one particular explanation or interpretation of astral
>projections. Often, however, the term has been used to refer to the
>separation of the astral from the physical body, and of course in
>this sense, but only in this sense, I deny the reality of astral
Your denial, having no scientific validity, is therefore, merely an opinion.
To prove such a denial, you would have to show more positive falsification
evidence, other than reference to the Ganzfeld theory, which is as far as I
can tell from the papers on it. is simply a hypothetical explanation of psi
phenomena from a psychological viewpoint -- with no factual "physical" (or
non physical) scientific basis -- other than third person experimental
If you wish to prove otherwise, please quote the appropriate references in
the Ganzfeld theory that would "prove" his theory valid from a "universal"
scientific (not simply physical-material) point of view. Even though
relativity and quantum theories that your arguments depend on, explain the
nature of physical reality from different points of view, they still
contradict each other in the realm of zero-point vacuum energies. And,
neither of them fits in with any sort of valid unified field theory (that
also must consider the "information" carried by such fields)... Although the
latest M-brane theory, which verifies the theosophical (and my ABC) view of
coenergetic, multidimensional unified energy fields, is getting pretty close
to such a Grand Unified Field Theory (GUFT) that links relativity with
quantum theory -- by modifying them both in some degree.
>Hope that answers Daniel's question.
Perhaps, but certainly not mine -- or, I would assume, other thoughtful and
knowledgeable "theosophists" (not necessarily "fundamentalists" -- which,
according to your definition, presumedly, are blind followers of the "dead
letter" as supposedly plagiarized by HPB:-).