- Or if one chooses to talk about positive charges attracted to negative charges, then each of those fields of energy may have some sense of awareness as to where the other field is, a sense of identity distinguishing itself and a sense the identity of a different field.
Or if one wanted to talk about the individual points within the field and their sense of identity, their sameness and its own difference from the other points.
- On Jan 29, 2009, at 1/29/095:19 AM, yanniru@... wrote:There is no such ting as a field going to infinity. All radiant energy fields must begin at the spinergy (spin momentum) of the singularity. The actual infinite G-force (potential mass-energy) singularity is the exact center of origin of the spin momentum spiral vortex triple loop -- which is outside of all metric time and space... i.e.; Unconditioned absolute space substance of infinite duration and infinite latent G-force.Yes, I guess so -- although I never said a BEC is a point... Just that it must be composed of an infinite number of absolute zero-points -- which, in themselves, are not a part of the metric space of the BEC. Thus, any BEC could be considered as composed of an infinite number of entangled "singularities"... With the ubiquitous absolute space at each of those points being a subset of an even higher order infinite-set space, ad infinitum. Thus, we could say that metric space may NOT be infinitely infinitely divisible -- but relative absolute space, underlying the entire metaphysical cosmos, could very well be . ;-) ..The only real "exact" solution, would NOT still come down to the fundamental state being an individual metric particle (that has no underlying static spatial cause or anchor). Therefore, Maldacena's solution is as flawed as all mathematical solutions of quantum physics --none of which can be consistent with pure unrenormalized relativity physics and its infinities and singularities. Also, Hawkings still admits he hasn't the faintest idea what occurred at the primal beginning before inflation.What is a "hard boundary" made of? Or, does such theories assume that the universe is composed of actual "particles" that are separate from the metric spacetime they vibrate in? The joke is that you sound like you think gluons and quarks are real solid particles, that are separate from the absolute space underlying them. Maybe, that's why physics is so fuzzy at the edges, and can't decide whether there's 3, 12, 26, 64, or any other limited dimensions, and thinks that consciousness depends on wave collapse and other obscure metaphors. ;-)However, I certainly understand that physical space at light speed "c" has an apparent "hard boundary" where its light velocity does its quantum phase jump to the higher order astral light field.The problem with all the extant quantum and cosmological theories (including Hawkings, Maldacena, and all the string and QFT theorists -- is that they can't get any further than that boundary... And even beyond the astral field, the microlepton, axion and tachyon theorists who apparently are dealing with the supposed astral particles, meet the solid boundary of the next higher phase change into the mental fields, etc.The "singularity, is even beyond the next highest order spiritual field on the physical plane -- where the lowest order of the fractal evolved fields of the cosmic planes begin, ad infinitum... And on up to the absolute plane of the potential multiverse. So, it's no wonder the physicists have to consider the smallest particle in their world must have finite mass-energy.So, what is the condition of the empty space between the protons and the neutrons? Or, (if, as Wolff and others prove or postulate, they are spherical standing waves of fundamental space) -- what's the condition of the absolute space at their exact harmonic field centers of origin?No matter how you shake it or contrive it mathematically, nothing can come from nothing. And, that *something* at 0°K would have to be "empty" of all form, linear motion, or successive time... Since absolute spin can only be the infinite non linear cyclic motion (in opposite angular directions) of that fundamentally inert and static absolute space-substance itself. Incidentally, that "substance" is only "absolute" relative to the metric space we observe it from. IOW, as the wise Vietnamese philosopher Mac Truong says, "the absolute is relative, and the relative is absolute."Thus, as I see it, the basic formula of ALL existence and life must be 0=∞... And both consciousness and protomatter come long before our 4th lowest order physical (aether) realm of the cosmos and its 2+6+6 initial fractal involved hyperspace fields appear (even long before the neurological systems evolve) -- that some limited focus and narrow minded thinkers in this forum base their otherwise rootless theories of "psychophysical psychoanalysis" and "integration-differentiation meaning" on. ;-) Not to say that such theories haven't some value in getting along on this plane of existence. But how can they explain anything about the real nature of reality -- even beyond the physics of this plane of reality they are limited by?Anyone wishing to see how the real world originates and occurs, and how consciousness actually works, check out:And, if there is any disagreement, please feel free to offer an alternative model of cosmogenesis that is equally consistent with and doesn't violate any of the fundamental laws of BOTH relativity and quantum physics -- as well as being the fundamental basis of all string, superstring, M, QFT, LQG, microlepton, holographic paradigm, biogenetics, and other theories of physics and biology currently in advanced development... And which also includes potential p-consciousness (i.e., awareness, will qualia, etc.) as a fundamental subjective quality of ALL phenomenal existence. (Unless they can PROVE consciousness emerges from or is an epiphenomena of matter.)Leon