Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Aether is the empty space

Expand Messages
  • Leon Maurer
    ... Only if you are blind to the actual multidimensional fractal involved hyperspherical geometry of the primal fields of cosmogenesis it refers to. See:
    Message 1 of 85 , Jun 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      On Apr 9, 2009, at 4/9/099:07 AM, chris lofting wrote:

      -----Original Message-----
      [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Maurer
      Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2009 10:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Aether is the empty space 
      on which the Universe sits
      On Apr 7, 2009, at 4/7/098:39 PM, chris lofting wrote:


        To be dimensionless means to focus on a point and as 
      such a realm of
        positive feedback dynamics free of negative feedback 
      where the latter
        imposes dimensionality through 'connecting the dots'. 
      When negative feedback
        is lost the amplification and discretisation dynamics 
      of the positive
        introduce us to the realm of infinities (and so move us 
      into Cantor's
        transfinite mathematics realm). Infinities take on 
      structure and as such
        reflect the same properties as the dimensional but 
      being compressed into the
        representation AS IF dimensionless.

      Only in metric directional terms -- that become applicable 
      AFTER the abstract potential energy (primal G-force) 
      manifests and descends fractally through enfolded hyperspace 
      fields to become physical/material forms of mass-energy 
      subject to measurement. 


      Only if you are blind to the actual multidimensional fractal involved hyperspherical geometry of the primal fields of cosmogenesis it refers to.  See:

      This "blindness" is evidence of the knee jerk, mind blocked thinking of all= preconditioned eliminative materialists. ;-)

      Prior to that, Absolute space con 
      tains potential mass-energy in the form of nonlinear spin or 
      non measurable abstract motion.... Therefore, metrically or 
      linearly "dimensionless."  

      "Absolute space', by the definition of space, is dimensional. To be a
      CONTAINER makes it more so since as a container it contains more than a
      point, there is negative feedback present holding things together. The
      dimensionLESS means a point and so negative feedback loses its definition
      since it needs at least two points to be defined. IWO the container property
      also disappears since containment implies dimensionality and the focus is on
      the dimensionless. Your prose is rubbish Leon, you need to find alternative 
      terms or define new ones since what you are using is not serving you well.

      Thanks for the advice, but since we are talking about initial conditions that are far different than the limited physical/material realm that your language deals with -- I guess I will just have to muddle along trying to define my vocabulary in simple terms you might understand. (That is, if you can open your mind to see angels, fairies and demons, as possible invisible conscious entities living on higher frequency phase order fields of fundamental unconditioned "absolute space.";-)  

      Can you imagine any finite metric dimension or *linear* motion that didn't begin and end at a point of absolute zero (pure non dimensional emptiness or self centered non-linear motion)?  If so, then what do you think it is, that must exist in or under that zero-point in metric spacetime?  

      Absolute space (NOT metric 3-dimensional spacetime fields) is specifically defined as a primal (eternal) substrate having no physical vectorial dimensional measurements whatsoever, that underlies, generates and supports all 1, 2, or 3 dimensional immaterial and material objects or radiant fields.   Such dimensionless or  *empty* (of form) "absolute space" would have to be located ubiquitously (at infinite ZPE centers) within the overall hyperspherical (toroidal) field of metric 3-dimensional space, at the zer= o-point center of every radiant energy field (and their harmonics) -- each vibrating at specific finite frequencies, ranging between near zero and near infinite phase orders... And, totaling four such phases at each level of hyperspacetime and observable spacetime fields (prior to symmetry breaking on the lowest order physical/material plane) -- in accord with fundamental cyclic and electrodynamic laws inherent in fundamental ZP spin momentum. See:

      IOW, overall absolute space, composed of infinite coadunate zero-points of infinite spin momentum, underlies all of manifest spherical metric spacetime gravitational fields, as far as it can possibly extend radially on all its harmonic levels.  Each form in such metric space, from galaxies to quantum and sub quantum particles begins with a zero-point singularity of finite spin momentum equivalent to the total mass energy of the form, including all its radiant fractal involved harmonic hyperspace fields and their virtual particles.

      Note, the analogous *octaval* field nature of the overall cosmic fields and the lowest order physical fields (before symmetry breaking on the material level).  Also, note the dual quaternary field aspects of the upper and lower realms (phases) of the First (triune) Logos.  Can you see the causative relationship to the dualities, trigrams, and hexagrams of the I Ching? Can you see the origin of the Tai Chi or Yin-Yang symbol and its analogy to the spherically polarized harmonic field structure of a photon particle standing wave?  See:

      This dual quaternary inner field structure is analogous to the different phase changes of different substances on the physical/material plane, such as water, carbon, gases, etc., at different levels of temperature and pressure... And even explains the nature of BEC's... As well as justifying the four elements, fire, air, water and earth of the ancient philosophers... Not to mention your four Bs, based on the same laws of fractal geometry and fundamental four phased cycles.  Note that a sine wave consists of a positive phase up-down and a negative phase down-up... Which is the basic ideal model of ALL vibrational energies at any frequency spectral phase order. The EM spectrum being at the low= est order of the physical/material level of metric spacetime.

      If a radio field carrying FM or AM information were not a perfect sine wave (as its fundamental carrier frequency_ -- perfect undistorted information transmission could not be achieved.  And unless the inner biological based field carrying the information of vision were not perfectly symmetrical and vibrating at a fixed fundamental frequency -- we could not be able to see the outer world in perfectly undistorted motion and capable of being coordinated exactly with our body movements and positions (given no defects in the mechanical or chemical hardware along the transformation and transmission pathways).  

        The presentation of infinities is a presentation of 
      pure symmetry in a
        sequence form of expression where the perfection of the 
      symmetry is not
        representable by particular numbers, there is no 
      possible 'rounding' of
        values that can express the perfection - all that can 
      be done is to
        subjectively select the rounding position (as we do 
      with PI etc); here we
        are into the realm of irrational numbers and their 
      association with form
        (the dimensional) in the dimensionless.

      But Pi is inherent in dimensionless cyclic spin -- which 
      becomes, when expanded radially, circular (at the perfect Pi 
      ratio between radius and circumference).  

      Your confusing PI as an agent of imposing order with the most commonly-used
      example of it - its use in measuring circles. The focus is on the ratio
      22/7. The CONTEXT in which such is manifest can differ in expression.

      e is another term that represents a ratio found in imposing order and again
      it is CONTEXT that covers its many manifestations in that imposition.

      PHI is another term that represents a ratio found in imposing order - and so
      on and so on. The infinite mantissas of these values reflect their PERFECT
      expression in that perfection is not 'roundable' and so when we reduce
      structure and so dimensionality to a point and so the dimensionless the
      structure is manifest as an infinite sequence of 'numbers' and subjectivity
      is then employed to 'round' such values; we use PI as 3.14 since that is
      'good enough' for reality.

      The realm of irrational numbers is a realm of BONDING, of linking entities
      together, make them share space, and so introducing order/structure. When we
      try to reduce dimensionality, and the non-reducible, to the dimensionless we
      get irrational numbers and infinite sequences - As such we cannot reduce to
      point all we can to is compress the data into a infinite sequence of points,
      all ordered hierarchically in their sequence.

      This dynamic covers the play of anti-symmetry and symmetry, partness and
      wholeness and brings out the inability to 'cut' the whole and maintain
      properties of symmetry; to cut means to move into the realm of the
      asymmetric and so unique and THAT equates with the dimensionless, both
      literally and figuratively.

      That's because all you can see is the material nature of the overall reality... And can't imagine fractal involved alternate spacetime fields, each at different phase orders of frequency/energy, that have no "material" metric dimensions -- which precede and underlie the metric spacetime that you base all your limited materialistic theories and arguments on.  

      So, all your B-B-B-B (baloney?;-) arguments are irrelevant to an understanding of the true underlying structural and energetic nature of fundamental reality... Even though your material-limited causes and conclusions of meaning are based on the same fractal mathematics that was initially expressed when fundamental cosmic ZP spin momentum transmuted into fractal involved radiant fields on three perpendicular spherical axes.  

      The so called 
      irrationality of the Pi number has nothing to do with the 
      potential circularity of the zero-point since a ratio is not 
      a linear measurement, and the point source of radiation in 
      space must be potentially spherical -- with potentially 
      infinite great circles on infinite polar axes.

      LOL! your lost.

      No.  You are... Since you can't see the forest for the trees and are trapped in the physical/mater= ial realm.  

      A good example is your description of a point as if it were a reduction of a line to its zero dimension -- without realizing that the "potentially spherical" point I refer to is the reduction of a spherical radiant energy field to its absolute zero-dimension... With its total energy compressed into the dimensionless non linear spin momentum of that point.  And, if we consider the spin as having a radial dimension, its center would consist of nothing -- which is impossible.

      This makes it perfectly obvious (which your specious arguments totally ignore) that if the energy field has a certain level of mass-energy, its absolute center point would have to have an equivalent amount of primal spin-momentum force... Yet still have no radial dimension.  Thus, the point would necessarily have all the *potentialities* (both qualitatively and quantitatively) of the energetic spherical field radiated from it...  And, since the spherical field has infinite radii, the potentially spherical point (at the exact center of its spin momentum source) would have the same infinite number of potential axes.  Since only three of those axes are sufficient for this universe, why wouldn't it be possible for that initial zero-point singularity to have the potentiality of generating infinite analogous parallel universes?  Or, in the limited realm of our metric physical universe, generating infinite fractal involved radiant fields that interpenetrate each other in every level of material spacetime and hyperspacetime (which some might call physical and metaphysical space).   

        Illogical. What your trying to focus upon is the realm 
      of points where such
        definitions of objective/subjective disappear due to the lack of
        dimensionality required for their definition - as such 
      a point is not
        identifiable as a whole or a part, it is both and yet 
      neither. Such labels
        thus become meaningless since we have moved out of 
      relational space
        (negative feedback) and into pure object space 
      (positive feedback reduced to
        differentiating a point)

        Pardon me for inadvertently not putting the word 
      "potential" before subjectivity and objectivity -- which 
      would make your  argument irrelevant.  

      tsk tsk - you wrote something and didnt check it - and when it appeared you
      didnt notice the error and correct it - unless it WASNT an error, all we see
      here is your struggling to cover-up a blatant error in your thinking! LOL!
      get real Leon.

      You still don't get it...  That the "relational space" you talk about and base your entire specious arguments and snotty remarks on, is the limited realm of physical/material reality for which you have no bases of origin.  Apparently, you believe that metric space, time, energy and matter is all there is, and just emerged out of nothing -- just like you believe that awareness and will emerges from the neural complexity of the brain.  How blind can you be?  Or, is that the only way you can justify your IDM theory of meaning?  

      What's really "real" (in spite of your arbitrary denials) is the underlying absolute space substance (without linear metric dimensions, time or motion) upon which the entire physical (linear metric) spacetime cosmos must emanate (radiate or emerge) from, and totally rests on.  How else could you explain the basis of inertia, linear motion, mass-energy, wave particles, etc., or resolve all the hard problems of conscious experience (qualia), brain-mind binding, non locality, etc. -- without drowning us in  incomprehensible confabulations based on an assumed eliminative materialism?  

      How can a theory explaining meaning, based on a fractal geometry limited to the metric universe alone, explain the fundamental cause of both matter (mass /energy and consciousness (awareness/will) -- one subjective and the other objective -- with neither one having any purpose without the other right from the start?   

      And, how can any argument with such limitations, be capable of refuting the ABC model as I've presented it, along with its fractal geometry and electrodynamic laws governing all physical phenomena -- including the transformation and transmission of the holographic information of consciousness, and its reconstruction, detection and perception? ... None of which can be explained with conventional physics or its "renormalized" mathematics (just like your similarly limited 'renormalized" fractal geometry).  

      That potentially 
      infinitely conscious and format= ive point can be considered 
      both empty and full, as well as part or whole.  Without such 
      an infinitely potential zero-point of unconditioned absolute 
      space prior to cosmogenesis, there could be no relational 
      space or conditioned reality.   

      Your use of such terms as "potentially infinitely"  and "infinitely
      potential" etc does you harm. Your trying to use terms that do not fit what
      your trying to explain - this is intellectual laziness.

      Well, if you understand what I'm trying to explain... Why don't you offer some alternative way of explaining it?  I suppose you think that nit picking words is a much less intellectually lazy way of refuting a logically rational theory or model of fundamental reality.  As it stands, my ABC theory and model of cosmogenesis rests on the proposition that absolute space is both substantial and infinite, and that any radiation from it has potentially infinite extension and is potentially, infinitely divisible... In addition to resting on the proposition that both "potential" phenomenal consciousness (expressed awareness/will) and noumenal spacetime/matter/energy are dual aspects of that *absolute* (zero degree Kelvin) primal *space*... That, in itself, is both metrically dimensionless and timeless (existing everywhere in infinite duration, undiminishable, no matter how many potentially infinite universes emanate from it).  If you can't comprehend or visualize that in your conscious mind's eye (imagination) -- then there is nothing more I can say...  And, as bright as you are intellectually -- you will never know or experience the light of your own soul (attain self realization) or understand the true meta[hysical nature nature of the cosmos.  

      Unfortunately, people who are totally convinced eliminative materialists -- whose minds are closed to any other spatial reality when they die and their *relatively eternal* (sic) highest order triune monadic field leaves the body -- will experience nothing until they awaken again in a new body in some (now) indeterminable future world -- with an absolutely blank slate and an even weaker intuition and imagination.  Fortunately, many such  people (who are NOT killed instantly in an unexpected accident, murder, or other disaster) will experience an NDE and see the light (at the end of the inter-field wormhole tunnel) in the last moments of brain death.  (This is predicted by the ABC model -- but which can only be proved to anyone who thinks like you, at the moment of their death. ;-)


        Totally irrelevant. I never said that absolute space IS 
      a BEC -- but that it ACTS as (if it were) a BEC. 

      your making the analogy of absolute space to A BEC - but a BEC is not
      dimensionless and the concepts of 'infinitely expandable' and 'infinitely
      compressible' are meaningless terms - they are imaginative terms and 
      reflect the use of positive feedback in thinking where amplification of a
      discretisation will lead to a runaway system and the appearance AS IF
      'infinite'. To expand means to contain as one expands and so covers a 
      boundary issue and so difference-to-sameness mappings and so
      dimensionality and so CLOSED SYSTEM dynamics and emerging

      Naturally, once the first triune fractal involved field emanates from its singularity or zero-point (non linear) spin momentum, it can start expanding linearly.  This us the only state at which a true BEC can appear as hyperspherical radiant energy fields and their harmonics.

      After it's third fractal involution and the cosmic matter reaches the physical phase, to eventually break symmetry and form ponderable material particles, that ultimately consolidate into atoms and molecules, to eventually evolve into organic beings with brains  -- is when you can start rationalizing the supposed emerging of consciousness... Which (if consciousness reefers solely to awareness, will, qualia, etc., as I define it) is simply a nonsensical presumption based on no scientific reality.  It's the same illogical assumption that presumes matter is fundamental and emerges out of nothing.  

      But, in contrast to that kind of reductive thinking, my "infinite linear expansion of space" refers only to the metric aspects of that radiation -- NOT the absolute space that is already infinite and eternal -- both as a container and a generator.  And, no matter what is generated or contained, it remains forever unchanged and undiminished... Yet infinitely compressible, malleable, and expandable spherically from each ubiquitous zero-point (as fractally involved harmonic radiant energy fields of consciousness).  

      As for the analogy of absolute space to a BEC... That only refers to its manifestation into the initial super symmetric Cosmic hyperspace fields prior to breaking of symmetry on the physical plane (at the third logos).  Therefore, all such metaphysical hyperspace fields (including those on the physical plane during initial inflation after its Big Bang) ARE actual BEC's with spherical dimensions capable of expanding and involving infinitely 

      So, we can say that each and all of the total Cosmic fields "contain" infinite zero-point spin-momentum singularities.  Since all those zero-point singularies can generate their own harmonic fractal involved fields on whatever hyperspace plane they occupy. See:

      And, since all such fields interpenetrate each other on all hyperspace levels, and can carry information as wave interference patterns on their surfaces... This is the basis of the overall holographic cosmos (along with its analogous, fractal involved, lower order physical universe.

      This expanding and contracting equates with the concept of BOUNDING, of
      differentiating A from B, us from them, accepted from rejected, difference
      from sameness. The QUALITY of bounding is built-in as a class of meaning
      used to describe aspects of reality - real or imagined and as such will be
      recruited by you as you try to build your model. The issues then are in the 
      total terms you use to instantiate that class of meaning in your particular
      perspective (ABC).

      My model starts at the primal beginning and follows the fractal involution of the primary field emanating radially from the cosmic zero-point singularity and its inherent spin momentum -- that is equivalent to the total mass energy of the subsequent hyperspherical cosmos.

      Of interest is that positive feedback moves us into a high energy
      utilisation and so the fragmentation of a BEC! Thus a BEC cannot be
      'infinitely expandable' since expansion from 0 Kelvin means heating up and
      that means fragmentation of the BEC (and so your 'absolute space'). In the
      other direction, 'infinitely compressible' leads us into issues we find in
      such as neutron stars! more heat, black holes etc etc and so no more a BEC
      or even close to one - unless one tries to interpret a black hole as a
      graviton version of a photon's BEC? ;-) - THAT then equates the overall
      concept of a superposition of bosons as a general concept applicable to all
      integrating processes.

      Gobbledygook (if not complete materialistic bullshit) 

      You can't use the properties of ponderable matter on the physical plane to refute or verify the properties or functions of any of the higher order fractal involved fields on the cosmic (or physical) hyperspace levels.  All that zero-degrees Kelvin means is that there is no linear motion of ponderable matter in metric spacetime.  

      Heat is only a measure of *linear* motion of matter-energy on the physical/material level... And has no relevance to the nonlinear spin or *abstract* motion at the zero-point origin of the cosmic or physical hyperspace fields (such as those postulated in string and M theories, etc.)  Nor can it apply to the expansion of any such fundamental radiant fields on any level of spatial reality.  If expansion generates heat, how come expanding space on the physical plane is so cold?  And why don't expanding electromagnetic energy fields on the physical plane freeze up their transmitter antennas (like expanding compressed gas from a nozzle)?  

      Your reaching for straws is laughable.

      The first 
      physical BEC is the initial manifestation of the zero-point 
      singularity at the instant of the "BIg Bang" on (the lowest 
      frequency phase order) physical/material spacetime (Aether) 
      -- where the "chaos game" begins 

      it cant - a BEC is not noisy - it manifests symmetry, perfect order, total
      sameness. No direction. Thus the analogy of 'absolute space' to a BEC is an
      analogy to order as originating when that does not appear to be the case.
      The chaos game begins with the containment of noise and this gets back to
      your use of the term 'container' applicable to your absolute space. In other
      words we can see your recruitment in and ad hoc manner of all of the
      possible classes of meaning available as you try to put your map together -
      but the issues are that your logic is faulty, influenced by metaphysics. ;-)
      - too symmetric.

      Just because you do not believe in the reality of the metaphysics on the higher order frequency-energy levels of manifest spin momentum  singularities of absolute space -- doesn't make it untrue... Or give you any justification to use material based theories of meaning to try to negate it.  

      It's your logic that is faulty -- since you assume that asymmetry comes before symmetry -- as the universe involves spacetime as it originates and expands out of its initial singularity, and later evolves material forms AFTER symmetry breaking.  As usual, you put the cart before the horse in all your reasoning.


            The hierarchy of infinites that come with a 
      focus on ordinality is a
            property of thinking where the NATURAL 
      hierarchic dynamics of precision
            through differentiating (and so positive 
      feedback bias) brings out the
            syntax bias of that style of thinking and with 
      that the formation of
            pyramid/tree-like hierarchies. The other form 
      of infinities in manifest
            through considerations of cardinality. See Cantor.

        Back assward irrelevant nonsense -- that begins with 
      the end.  Like saying cause follows effect -- which cannot 
      apply to progressive involution and evolution of matter out 
      of empty space.  Just like your convoluted arguments leading 
      to your assumptions that the neurology determines the cause 
      and nature of underlying spatial reality. 

      Your confused. All the neurology does is present us with the CLASSES of
      meanings we will use in describing reality. We cannot escape such in the
      context of communicating reality, it is the underlying SAMENESS of our
      shared neurology that defines us as a species and our instruments are
      extensions of that neurology and its sensory systems.

      The neurology reflects adaptation to the universe and the stability of the
      neuron over hundreds of millions of years indicate that what it does is a
      'best fit' for representing reality.

      Yes, but only  representing the *physical/material* reality of overall metric spacetime (i.e., the physical Aether) -- while completely ignoring the possible underlying higher frequency-energy phase order hyperspacetime fields that would have to precede it, as well as the absolute space that must exist before the initial radiant manifestation of the cosmos.  And, even if that metaphysical proposition is unprovable, it still is a better assumption and rests on a sounder reasoning than your material only guess and reductive analysis -- that cannot imagine the universe as a simple hologram... If that is the actual case, and metaphysics is the basis of physics,  then all your physical relationships are nothing but temporary expressions of the laws of nature being measured by similarly objective parts or aspects of itself... Although, capable of being subjectively experienced (perceived and responded to) only by absolute zero-point consciousness (a= wareness, will) itself -- that must be outside of all metric time and space.  

      As a species we are a DETERMINED form, grounded in genetics and as such
      reflecting the extraction of essentials from experiences to form
      instincts/habits then usable for dealing with future 'like' contexts - this
      being an energy-conserving activity and so reflecting the underlying
      symmetry present. What this dynamic does is FORCE the emergence of symmetry
      from asymmetry and on into emerging abilities to process details (parts) and
      on into mediation across the part/whole dichotomy in the form of
      consciousness and is languages. As such we have asymmetry to symmetry to
      asymmetry but the latter at a more developed level than the original

      Original ONLY to the ponderable physical/material universe at the fourth lowest ƒ-E phase order level of cosmic hyperspace -- AFTER the breaking of initial symmetry on its  fourth lowest order level.  See illustration at the web site noted above (and refer to the fractal mathematics of string theory based on the Kaluza-Klein manifold.  How can the dynamics of material nature determine the causation of that nature or the consciousness that experiences it?   All your irrelevant arguments have explanatory gaps you could drive a galactic sized trick through. ;-)

      So, it's like you're trying to determine the cause and nature of the seed by reductively analyzing the fruit surrounding it.  It's no different than your assumption that matter, in the form of the brain's neurology, is creative perceptive and willful, and that absolute consciousness (perceptive awareness= , responsive will and qualia) emerges from the neural processing.  

            The moment you imagine Hilbert space and so a 
      realm of points you have in
            fact introduced dimensionality in the form of 
      imagination! ;-)

        But, that meaningless statement has no relevance in 
      proving that there is not an underlying metaphysical reality 
      that exists now and prior to the material reality your entire 
      IDM reasoning rests on. 

      "... there is NOT an underlying metaphysical reality"? More confusion. The
      metaphysical is emergent from the dialectical, the noise of dynamics gets
      encapsulated and 'order' emerges in the form of symbol usage.

      Talk about "gobbledygook"...This is ridiculous.  How do metaphysical higher order energy fields in different dimensions of hyperspacetime "emerge from noise of (what) dynamics"?   And what is it that "encapsulates"that "noise" to "emerge 'order" in the form of symbol usage"?  Where do you get the nerve to call that an explanation of anything?  

      Certainly, you cannot, by such 
      eliminative ass backward reasoning, prove that imagination is 
      a product of material processes... Like you continue to 
      assert that the neurology can determine the nature of 
      fundamental timeless and dimensionless, non metric reality 
      out of which metric spacetime and matter-energy first 
    • chris lofting
      ... ... not my job - that is YOUR job... and your not doing very well at it at the moment. ... .. as is your need to include the taking of the concepts
      Message 85 of 85 , Jun 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Maurer
        > Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2009 7:32 AM
        > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Aether is the empty space
        > Well, if you understand what I'm trying to explain... Why
        > don't you offer some alternative way of explaining it?

        not my job - that is YOUR job... and your not doing very well at it at the

        For example, this is meaningless outside of your mindset:

        > My model starts at the primal beginning and follows the
        > fractal involution of the primary field emanating radially
        > from the cosmic zero-point singularity and its inherent spin
        > momentum -- that is equivalent to the total mass energy of
        > the subsequent hyperspherical cosmos.

        .. as is your need to include the taking of the concepts of angels and
        demons etc literally.

        > Just because you do not believe in the reality of the
        > metaphysics on the higher order frequency-energy levels of
        > manifest spin momentum singularities of absolute space --
        > doesn't make it untrue... Or give you any justification to
        > use material based theories of meaning to try to negate it.

        your confused - my take is there is no NEED for such beliefs other than as

        > It's your logic that is faulty -- since you assume that
        > asymmetry comes before symmetry -- as the universe involves
        > spacetime as it originates and expands out of its initial
        > singularity, and later evolves material forms AFTER symmetry
        > breaking. As usual, you put the cart before the horse in all
        > your reasoning.

        No. I have stated that OUR nature as a species is symmetric and that in
        RESPONSE to an asymmetric, thermodynamic, universe where the only form of
        long term survival in a 'noisy' universe is to conserve energy and THAT
        immediately applies all conservation classes that come with symmetry.

        The focus on conservation introduces the containment of noise and THAT leads
        us into the chaos game properties, the main one being spontaneous order
        generation through recursion. That order is NATURALLY grounded in symmetry
        in that the containment sets a boundary and so a closed system.

        From our determined, symmetric, holistic, organic, species nature has
        emerged mediation and with that language and consciousness. IOW our genetic
        determinism is 'general' and exposure to contexts has favoured, over time,
        the emergence of mediation and choices in behaviours, particulars refined
        into singulars. This realm of high precision focuses on the dynamics of
        anti-symmetric and into the asymmetric (they are closely related).

        The basic brain dynamic is aspect/whole, concentrated/diffuse, and so
        covering anti-symmetry/symmetry. Mediation emerges out of the middle of that
        asymmetric dichotomy and as such presents consciousness as asymmetric but
        also exploiting of feedback across anti-symmetry/symmetry,

        Thus a path of mindless asymmetry through symmetry (the agent of pattern
        matching and so order/law establishment) to mindful asymmetry (consciousness
        and its languages and imagination) is manifest in species development and on
        into singular being development.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.