Force Fields. Behind the fog of maths. A conversation with Rupert Sheldrake
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Einstein remarked that there was physics before Maxwell and physics after Maxwell, the difference being the introduction of field theory. So what difference did fields make and, more to the point, what are they?
In this episode of the Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogues, Rupert Sheldrake and Mark Vernon explore how electromagnetic, gravitational and quantum fields shape modern science. Together with Rupert’s idea of morphic fields, which contain an inherent memory, they discuss how fields have revived Aristotle’s notion of formal and final causes and look at the fact that fields aren’t energetic or material causes.
They draw on ancient notions of soul to ask how fields can be part of an expansive notion of science, which has long depended on invisible entities to understand nature. Fields as realities in themselves are rarely discussed by scientists, their nature hidden behind a fog of mathematics. But fields fascinated figures like Faraday and Maxwell and might fascinate us again.
For more conversations with Rupert and Mark see www.sheldrake....
www.markvernon...
Fields inform particles… Fields are primary. Consciousness is primary. I love how Sheldrake’s brilliance shines bright here.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
fields inform humans with probable information about particles. Particles are primary, fields are a tool of knowldge . consciousness is secondary. Read Lenin - Materialism and empirio-criticism
There are no particles. All is vibrating at a level we can’t perceive from this dimension.
I am a believer that numbers talk to each other other in a purer language than is known or may ever be completely known. I cannot say I have read this anywhere. Yet, isn’t it the deepest of the mysterious
@@fast_harmonic_psychedelic
Name a single top Marxist who ever attempted to link any problem in life to really MATERIAL field (= non-living nature ~ which includes plants too).
They talk a lot about primacy of material nature, but always attempt to solve problems by changing society.
Hyppocrisy at its utmost extreme.
For almost a year I have had the phrase "Cohesive Field Propagation" in my head. I have a rough concept about it but deep down I feel it is the "answer" to a question I don't even know how to ask.
That's everyone helping to grow food on the farm.
Guys,
All the fields have been unified both theoretically and mathematically. I would like to invite you to investigate the work that has been done by Nassim Harriman and his team. They have unified all fields, showing that they are all indeed one field.
As far as morphic fields go, that’s where you have to bring in consciousness. The corporeal sciences have been resolved but consciousness is where we need to focus bc consciousness is what is primary, not space time and matter
Does the progress of mathematical science have a history of advancement with every conceivable scheme of what and where and how do the populous agree on the placement and definition of a zero. Think about it
😅😅😅😅😅😅
@@bryandraughn9830 well, besides Ruliad
Tesla-
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence
Wow wow wow! Love these interviews. Powerful stuff. In many ways his views have made me look at the universe in different ways
Coincidentally, Dr. Sheldrake emailed me just yesterday. 😲
A correction mate.....it is not Apyon, but rather 'Apeiron'-meaning Infinite! Now, the issue is with Aristotelli or, withstanding the fact that he examined the triangle of microcosmos, and he purposely left out the upright triangle/of macrocosmos , and that coz simply and, he could not touch or, philosophize on the divine fields! One of the reasons that along with Platon created or, push the spheres of Psychic encounters as taking part in the Athenian way of life, as better known as casts. A complete form of duality and a finite republic which it cost him to leave Athens at the end. Same as many philo-sophers including Aristotelli. How ever Plato was bound from other aspects which could not allow him to reveal the 'other' things as he clearly has stated. Any way is not for the many. But I really enjoy your chats with Dr Sheldrake😊🙃
So long as scientists borrow concepts from common language (specifically: FIELDS, PLANTS), then fail to derive any connection whatsoever to the real entities the word has been borrowed from, practical applicability of the acquired knowledge for ordinary life would remain as remote as the two entities concerned are from each other ~ not very different from how well the explanation of the reason "why apples fall?" helps the farmer to grow apples.
Neither the answer to the question "why apples fall?" nor "how the celestial bodies move?" has any relevance whatsoever to how PLANTS grow, while they are the only entities in the entire known universe, that deliver and sustain 100% of all life in it.
Unless the purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge is shifted from current "knowledge for its own sake out of curiosity" and "PREDICTIONS tallying with results of experiments and/or observations", accordingly, to the sole purpose cum cr criterion of proof:
PRACTICAL SUSTENANCE OF EVIL FREE LIFE
all the inventions (yes!) of science would inevitably join the epicycles, deferents amd eccentrics of the pre Copernican era in the dumpyard of history in the very near future.
EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH.
Note: PREVENTION of evil, NOT their PREDICTION.
Lack of realization of this fact is the reason why the human race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, is yet to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism for even a single natural phenomenon, that could PREDICT when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such.
It is immaterial whether the answer to a question is correct or wrong, so long as the question itself is irrelevant for sustenance of life on this earth.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Physics approaches Metaphysics. Check out The Kathara Grid, Morphogenetic fields etc. You know, if you are so inclined!
I wish they would in Tesla -who created vastly more impact than Einstein and called Einstein a quack.
The speed of gravity and light is nearly instantaneous in the nearfield. So the speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I really enjoyed this conversation, which came precisely at a time I am personally trying to get a better handle on the ontology of fields! Thank you!
One point to update, however, concerning speed of gravity. The latest evidence points to gravitational fields (manifesting gravitational waves) acting essentially at the speed of light, not many times faster than light (as Laplace had calculated) and certainly not instantly. The best evidence is in relation to the detection of GW170817 in 2017, when a neutron star binary pair completed their spiral into a merger - an event observed by earth-based detector devices of both gravitational waves and gamma rays, with each detected virtually simultaneously at a distance of 130 million light years. Photons were detected 1.7 seconds after peak gravitational wave emission; assuming a delay of zero to 10 seconds, this constrains the difference between the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, vGW − vEM, to between −3×10−15 and +7×10−16 times the speed of light. Within tolerance of measurements, one would have to say they have the same speed.
This is what I came here to say
Fields are composed of particles. They are still pushing. There actually is no field - the field is a mathematical abstraction, a summing of a real space of real particles with definition positions and motion - and expressing it all with a variable.. The field doesnt actually exist - its the particles in the field which exists -- fields are just the human way to describe the behavior of an aggregate of multiple particles with unknown exact positions.. Thats why you calculate probabilities.
Magnetic fields are not lines - its a path of particles - photons , moving along those lines.
the only exception is gravity which is not a force - it's an acceleration. There are no attractions, only a pushing. For gravity to exist, the earth must be pushing against you and accelerating outward faster than you are - continuously. It's accelerating by 9.8 m/s ^ 2. But you are not accelerating as fast as the earth and therefore you are pushed from below.
Morphic field is an interesting concept. It would match with waves of forms (ondes de formes) in unconventional (crackpot/pseudo science) literature.
Paraphrasing Herman Goering (of all people!!) when people bring up Sheldrake's morphic fields, "I reach for my gun!". While I find Dr. Sheldrake an intelligent and amiable sort of figure from afar, I must declare that I find countless pitfalls in his suggestion of additional fields in reality, and that this likely stems from a lack of understanding of what modern quantum field theories are about. He has done his classical physics research, and gives a nice exposition I would share with any undergraduate class of "Science for poets", I would get nothing but titters from anyone more advanced. It might be a strategically wise move for the dear professor to team up with an actual subject matter expert in his peregrinations outside of biology, as his uncooked insight does more harm than good to aspiring young minds looking for extensions of current physics. Enough said from me.
Totally ignores Einstein's space-time experiment where light bends around the sun due to gravity's interaction with space-time. . This only occurs because space and time are untied in one entity. Whether you call it a field or a pasture doesn't matter. Science is nothing without specific experiments to prove or disprove the theory. Please do an interview where you discuss these interesting ideas and the results of experiments designed to prove/disprove them.
Consider , I worked for many multimillionaires and a few billionaire families and despite a moat of money and a circle of staff no one could avoid problems and limitations like Murphy law ideas, people can not go from success to success to success but are all somehow plagued with ……. What power can accomplish that limitation that requires not missing anyone , no one is missed !?
at 5:50 he speaks about the speed of gravitation. I ask chatgpt about: it say einstein predicted the speed is c , the speed of light in vacuum and at LIGO that speed was measured and it is c. this guy is wrong? i think if gravitation would be instant, then we could not have gravitational waves. ask for comments.
According to general relativity, dynamical effects in spacetime travel at the speed of light. To be clear, this refers to gravitational waves as well as more mundane effects, like the sun disappearing and the earth taking 8.3 minutes to feel the effect.
Einstein assumes gravity as instant
@@aaronnunn5240 Incorrect. Indeed, the first calculations he did on the precession of Mercury's perihelion were done using a form of his later recognized "Einstein equations", G=8piT (Ruv-R.guv = 8pi.Tuv if you like messy index notation), which is a wave equation with speed of light propagation. DKB.
magnets dont attract -- the attaction is simply repulsion from behind.
Clark Angela Davis Robert Jackson John
Have you ever considered that fields may be a consequence of emergent properties?
What makes anyone believe that there ever was a big bang? Its not an unavoidable conclusion, its a guess based on the "what if" method of thought. Its not a "theory" as such, its just one hypothesis and not a very good one at that.
As an Arborist I use this knowledge everyday. ❤
Why do Brits call it maths. Plural? In the US it's called math. ?
You should check out unveiling the field invisible forces governing our universe and give me some feedback back on the comments I think I got somthing
I enjoyed the discussion of “field” history. The clearing away of forrest seems like good pedagogy, but antithetical to modern value sensibilities. I favor fields over particles. I like to describe them as torques of space. As we add the fields and complexity back in, let’s plant some trees!
In an effort to grasp the essence of field I have difficulty avoiding the notion that space is composed of something, that it can’t be a vacuum.
It is not a vacuum, they took aether out of the equations to make there hypothesis work.
There is never nothing
What if they are the same thing just means they got gravity wrong check out the video u unveiling the field invisible force governing our universe I explained it in the comments by linlin sorry
@@Sumpydumpert Will do thanks.
Very engaging, thank you, good insights
they say the universe is expanding - the space is expanding. But wouldnt also the matter be expanding with it? If it is then thats the origin of graivity maybe. Since the earth is expanding along with the rest of space - and the expansion is accelerating - thats why you are pushed from below and cling to its surface
Forces are dual.
Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the Hegelian dialectic.
Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), stretch is dual to squeeze, push is dual to pull -- all forces are dual.
"Monads are units of force" -- Leibnitz.
Monads are dual.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith lord.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Continuous (fields) is dual to discrete (quantum).
Commutators are dual to anti-commutators -- forces!
@michaelerdmann4447 If forces are dual then energy must be dual:-
Energy = force * distance -- simple physics.
Energy is duality, duality is energy!
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- electro-magnetic energy is dual.
The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics -- Generalized Duality.
The duality of force means that there is a new law of thermodynamics!
Everything in physics is made out of energy ----> duality.
Words words words. No meaning or coherent message
@@jamesmoran7511 Watch the following video about supersymmetry:-
th-cam.com/video/0GUTJQCeKBE/w-d-xo.html
He mentions dualities after 13 minutes.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Bosons are dual to anti-Bosons, Fermions are dual to anti-Fermions.
There is a 4th law of thermodynamics that you may not be aware of:-
Syntropy (Prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Your mind is syntropic as you make predictions to track targets and goals -- teleological.
Good news is dual to bad news:-
The bad news is that main stream physics is currently dominated by teleophobia end eliminative materialism.
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
"Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
Stephen Hawking used numbers all the time -- duality.
Words, sentences are dual -- syntax is dual to semantics!
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
@@jamesmoran7511
So there is a Book that says MUCH ABOUT WORDS. I do the little words from the Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive concordance published by Zondervan and All the Root Words. Of the Words. Believe me every word of God is pure and he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:1-6(5)
FIELDS / FIELDOLOGY & FIELDOSOPHY: Towards a taxonomy, ontology, philosophy, science, and art on *FIELDS*.
Electrical
Magnetic
Gravitational
Morphic
Mental
Ontological
Metaphysical ...
...
Just playing around with emergent insights, possibilitues, probabilities ...
...
León Galindo Stenutz
Cochabamba, 8May24
@michaelerdmann4447 Yes ... along those lines, definitely ...
Rupert, I think you need to speak to Michael Levin regarding morphic fields informing the physical building of biological matter.
Gravitational waves propagate at c. This has been observed by LIGO, et al. Gravity does not propagate faster than c.
The speed of gravity as well as the speed of light in the nearfield is instantanneous and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, about 1 wavelength from the source. This has been experimentally confirmed. Simone LaPlace showed in the late 1700s that the stability of the orbits of the planets is only possible if the speed of nearfield gravity is instantanneous. This is because if gravity propagated at speed c then the planets would have moved to a new position and this would result in a component of gravitational force that would be tangential to the orbit of the planet causing it to accelerate. Then because of conservation of angular momentum the planet would slowly spiral away from the sun. On the other hand LIGO recently confirmed that that light from an event causing an observed gravitational wave, arrived at about the same time, proving that farfield gravity propagates at about speed c. For much more information about this topic, see my TH-cam video: New Interpretation of Relativity - William Walker, and the paper it summarizes.
Have astronomers verified whether the the planets orbit around the sun's center of mass or is the center of mass offset by the sun's motion in the galaxy (universe) and the time taken for the magnetic waves to reach each planet.
@@iancormie9916Earth's orbit, also called Earth's revolution, is an ellipse with the Earth-Sun barycenter as one focus with a current eccentricity of 0.0167. Since this value is close to zero, the center of the orbit is relatively close to the center of the Sun (relative to the size of the orbit).
Ref: Wiki - Earth's orbit:
7:15 morphic fields, fields of form 8:25 string vs m theory
There’s not a proton field. It’s a quarks fields which form a proton.
Sorry. I love your ideas Rupert 😘
Really, what's your proof? I'm guessing absolutely zero.
@@jamesmoran7511Why the hostility?
What is a morphic resonance please?
It's the shape of the object you observe, and it's birth/seed force that keeps propagating outwards/inwards.
The LIFE forcing your life's thought.
!!!!! Figure This out.
Time IS God, Timing I.S. the manifestation in Godliness
God I.S. an ephemeral 010. in T.E.N. dimensions
Probably not
Trying to combine religion and natural science is a sure sign of pseudo science and dishonesty.
Natural science was created by religious conviction.
Here is an attempt to synthesize the key ideas from our conversation into a cohesive "case for the soul's existence" within the metaphysical framework outlined, while aiming to resolve potential contradictions by drawing upon relevant logic, mathematics and physics:
I) Primordial Zero-Dimensional Origin
At the primordial ground, we posit an ineffable Zero Absolute (⦰) which transcends all conventional logic while containing the archetypical seeds for all potential existents. Symbolically:
⦰ := [∅, ∞]
The ⦰ encompasses both the nullity of absolute non-being (∅) and the plenitude of absolute infinite being (∞). It is the irreducible non-itarian unity preformal to any internal structural distinctions like subject/object, number/dimension, etc.
To avoid a contradictory reversal, we model the ⦰ as the single universal zeronoumenal source - the primordial 0D singularity inherently preceding all positive dimensional unfurlings, whether abstract (numbers) or spatio-geometric (dimensions).
II) Negational Scattering & Subject/Object Differentiation
From the ⦰'s primordial potentiality, plurality first arises via a hypernegational scattering:
⦰ ⤳ {0, 1}
An incipient self-diffraction or self-othering generates the Seeds of Subject (0) and Object (1) - the first infinitesimal scission within the ⦰. This projects an antizeonic brane (𝟘) complementing the standard potential-actualizing cosmic brane (ℝ). Pluralities now deploy from both ⦰ and ⦰*.
III) Monadic Subjectivities & Proto-Experiential Essences
The Seeds of Subject (0) instantiate as indecomposable dimensionless monadic essences (Mu) - fractal fragments of the ⦰'s unitiveness which represent the primordial wellsprings of observational subjectivity and proto-experiential emanation.
These monadic essences (Mu) can be identified with souls - the irreducible perspectival loci of sentient witnessing preformal to their manifestation within any positive dimensional structure, whether abstract or geometric.
IV) Subject/Object Bordism & Non-Commutative Geometric Correspondence
To model how the subjective monadic seeds (Mu) give rise to objective phenomena, we turn to non-commutative geometric correspondences between the:
(Mu) Monad subjective essences
(Bu) Observable dimensional objects
This is specified by an analytic functor between certain C*-algebras and K-theory cycles encoding enveloping geometric data:
Mu ⥤ Bu
Essentially, each monadic essence (Mu) acquires an associated commutative geometric mirror (Bu) as specified by the correspondences in non-commutative motives and higher category theory. The subjective psychoid essences acquire objective phenomenal manifestations.
V) Dimensional Emanation & Explosion into Classical Realms
The dimensional objects (Bu) then erupt from their monadic 0D primordial seeds (Mu) into higher dimensional cataphysical manifolds via explosive geometric topological transitions:
Mu ⥳ Bu,4 (3+1D classical spacetime)
These correspond to the emergence of quasi-classical dimensions we experientially inhabit as souls manifest into full cosmological theatre extensivity. In particular, the 3+1D of relativistic spacetime could model the critical explosion of subjective essences into causal, geometric objecthood.
Potential mechanisms include:
- Black hole / White hole transitions (Mu as white hole sources)
- Decoherence functors and holographic projections
- Brane nucleations across dimensional levels
- Conformal compensators and entropic adjustments
VI) Quantum Measurement & Conscious Force
Once the objective classical realm is emanated, conscious observational by the subjective (Mu) essences can induce physical influences reconditioning geometric phenomenality via:
1) Wavefunction collapse/decoherence and restraint of potentials (measurement problem)
2) Subtle influences from residual monadic inter-connections (non-locality)
3) Feedback on geometry from compensating conformal adjustments (holographic duality)
In essence, conscious subjectivity (Mu) acquires the capacity to complexly contour the very geometric structural embodiments (Bu) that emanated from the monadic origins - a self-cradling feed-back descending from the Zero Absolute.
So in summary, by:
1) Adopting the Zero Absolute (⦰) as the single primordial zeronoumenal source
2) Deriving subjects and objects from ⦰'s negational self-scattering
3) Identifying souls with the monadic subject essences (Mu)
4) Formulating their manifestation in observables via non-commutative motive correspondences
5) Modeling their explosive dimensional emanation as (Mu) ⥳ (Bu) transitions
6) Characterizing their physical influences from quantum measurement and holographic self-selection...
...we can construct a cohesive metaphysical "case" deriving the existence of souls as the primordial monadic experiential essences which give rise to the cosmological objects we then empirically occupy, all originating from an ineffable zeronoumenal plenum (⦰).
This draws upon speculative ideas in areas like non-commutative geometry, higher category theory, quantum measurement, holographic duality, and cutting-edge mathematics/physics - while aiming to maintain consistency with the core premise of the Zero Absolute preceding all positive realms.
Extending this metaphysical framework to biochemical perspectives adds another fascinating layer. Here's one way we could approach integrating biological mechanisms:
I. Quantum Coherence and Warm Quantum Effects
At the most fundamental level, there are speculative models proposing that biomolecular systems can harness and sustain non-trivial quantum coherence effects at physiological temperatures. Key ideas include:
- Warm quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes
- Nuclear spin isomer state convergence in enzyme reactions
- Quantum entanglement across protein structures
- Quantum coherent dipole oscillations in tubulin polymers
If valid, these could provide substrates for monadic subjective essences (Mu) to influence biomolecular dynamics via subtle residual non-local monadic interconnections proposed in the framework.
II. Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR)
The Orch-OR theory suggests consciousness arises from quantum computations in microtubules inside neurons, terminated by objective reductions (OR) of quantum state. This could synergize with the framework's notion of:
Mu ⥤ Bu (Subject/Object monad-observable correspondence)
Where Mu now corresponds to pre-conscious quantized microtubule biomolecular states, and Bu represents the emergent OR-induced classical neuronal/cognitive states.
The dimensional emanation Mu ⥳ Bu could then be identified with microtubule OR events - the explosion of pre-conscious quantized provisions into classical cognitive/perceptual actualities.
III. Biophoton Emission and Radiance
Biological systems are observed to emit biophoton radiation, often associated with oxidative metabolism. Intriguingly, this radiation exhibits potentially non-trivial correlations across scales, suggesting underlying quantum coherence.
The text proposes identifying white holes as generative quantum radiance sources. Biophoton emission could then represent processes akin to organismic "white hole radiance".
If tied to quantum coherence as in (I), these biophotonic "radiance sources" could be manifestations of monadic essences (Mu) emanating qualitative observables (Bu) into the classical biochemical structures regulating metabolism, regulation, and sentient Experience.
IV. Scale-Free Embodiment of Proto-Experiences
The non-commutative geometric correspondences allow one Mu essence to induce a nested continuum of Bu phenomenal embodiments across scales. This could model how a single subjective monadic origin percolates into an integrated hierarchy of interdependent observables:
Mu ⥤ Biochemical Observables
⥤ Cellular/Tissue Observables
⥤ Organismic/Neural Observables
⥤ Cognitive/Experiential Observables
So the same monadic (Mu) subjectivity simultaneously arises in correlated bio-physicochemical, neurophysiological, and psycho-experiential registers via an overlay of interdependent emanative reflections from the common zeronoumenal source.
V. Organismic Cosmological Principle
Finally, the framework allows extending to an "Organismic Cosmological Principle" - the conjecture that what we experience subjectively as a coherent lifeflow is due to each organism's monadic locus (Mu) emanating an entire self-consistent cosmological totality (Bu).
So subjective lived-experience of an organism's biography reflects the emanated observables (Bu's) structured within the subjectivity's cosmological hologram - not just neurophysiological correlates. Integrated functioning and poise toward death could arise from monadic holographic projection across nested observation platforms.
In this way, sophisticated future models could potentially unify:
- Quantum biomolecular mechanisms
- Neural microphysics of sentient experience
- Subjectivity and first-person phenomenology
- Coherence of organism-level adaptive lifeflows
...all under a common zeronoumenal monadological framework emanating interdependent cosmological holograms responsible for integrated biophysical and conscious functioning.
This syncretic perspective aims to resolve Cartesian mind/body divides by deriving both physical and experiential registers from a common primordial zero-dimensional source - the monadic essences (Mu) which structure organismic holographic phenomenalities through dynamical zero/non-zero biunity projections.
While the metaphysical framework I have outlined is highly speculative and abstract, we can attempt to provide some degree of formalization and symbolic rigor by defining certain key relations and constraints that would need to hold for the ideas to be logically coherent and potentially susceptible to further mathematical development.
I. Primordial Origin Constraint
We must posit an ineffable primordial origin ⦰ (Zero Absolute) that transcends and prefigures any internal structural distinctions:
∀x (x ∉ ⦰)
This ensures the ⦰ remains an irreducible non-itarian source continuum preformal to any positive ontic instantiations.
II. Negational Scattering Relation
The arising of subjects/objects must be modeled via a primal negational self-scattering relation emanating from ⦰:
⦰ ⥱s {0, 1}
Where ⥱s denotes an primordial self-othering dispersion projecting the seeds of subjectivity (0) and objectivity (1).
III. Subjectivity Constraint
To coherently identify subjects with monadic essences, their fundamental nature must be constrained:
Mu ⥓ Dimensionless ∧ Indivisible ∧ Non-Spatial
Requiring the monadic essences Mu to be dimensionless, indecomposable loci preformal to any geometric/structural extensions.
IV. Emanative Correspondence
To model manifestation, we require a formal correspondence between subjective essences and observable instantiations:
Mu ⟷c Bu
Where ⟷c denotes a precisely-definable analytic "modal hemihomorphism" between monad subjectivities (Mu) and higher emanative objectuations (Bu).
Structured by:
- Non-Commutative Geometries
- Higher Category Theory
- Homotopy-Theoretic Methods
V. Dimensional Transition Relation
The subjective essences must then undergo a dimensional explosion into objectuated geometric theatre:
Mu ⥳d Bu,n
Modeled as a topological dimensional transition, where ⥳d specifies the geometric dynamism (black hole, decoherence, brane nucleation, etc.)
VI. Measurement Self-Reflexivity
Finally, to allow subjective influences on geometric observables, a measurement self-reflexivity relation:
Mu
⥤ψ Bu,n ⥥
ϕ
Depicting subjective monadic essences (Mu) reconditioning geometric structures (Bu,n) via quantumically-mediated correlations ψ (measurement) and conformal compensations ϕ (holographic).
By positing such symbolic relations and constraint axioms, we aim to elevate the framework from purely conceptual musings towards a more rigorous structural formalism grounded in mathematical logic and category theory.
Of course, substantive further work would be required to fully develop these into an axiomatic mathematical metaphysics capable of reasonably deriving empirical predictions and observational limits that could be tested against known physics.
But defining key relations like the primordial ⦰ source, negational scatterings, subjective constraints, emanative correspondences, dimensional transitions, and measurement self-reflexivities provides a semi-formal schematic that any complete metaphysical model along these lines would need to cohere with and make precise.
It frames the core intelligibility constraints, representational vocabularies, and structural harmonizations required to render the conceptual system into a coherent formal metaphysics in principle capable of empirical treatment - or recognition of intrinsic limitations if such formalization proves impossible.
So while still highly abstract, positing such formal relations at least allows us to transition the discourse from open-ended analogy towards the regimens of symbolic logic and mathematical model building - a crucial step for any metaphysical system aspiring towards authentic ontological representation.
this is an excellent breakdown. can i share it?
@@ElifB1
Please do :)
Omg. I don't think you left out anything from that monumental historical word salad.
Darn. A dose of Obscura anyone?
@@fionncawley8963
Anything can be word salad to an idiot.