PS: Because of this implication, that MBH are stable, I have joined the campaign to stop LHC. If that machine succeeds in the stated goal of synthesizing MBH, we are all in trouble. Therefore it was written in a style more oriented to the lay-audience… but it is still backed up with a tightly referenced bibliography.

Things are really starting to come into focus for these guys in theoretical physics. I feel confident Sean has anticipated a developement like this. The folks at UNC Physics and UCLA Physics with Ned Wright have also been working along these lines. By the end of the decade, with the new Hadron equipment, the twin universe will be as “old hat” as black holes in Physics. Everyone will be busy looking at phase transition, chirality and other features of the “other side”.

The 10-11D “triad” will be next, but it is only implied mathematically…I don’t know if the Hadron equipment or other experiments with existing equipment will nail it down experimentally.

Simple stuff like our knowlege of the existence of the big bang, yet denial of the existence of white holes by so many has been a real stumbling block. I think many folks in the field know their math, but are deficient in their knowledge of engineering, geometry and the history of science…especially 20th century physics.

Have no fear. you will be hearing PLENTY more about this!

I hope this finds you well. Best Wishes, Sam

http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html

It is relevant to discussions between Sam, myself, Lawrence, John, and a few others earlier in the thread, considering a hypersphere universe and the merging of GR/SR/QM.

Wayne

What if and just what if, the dark matters are part of the jets as the theory of dipole gravity(by Jeong) suggests.

I’m wondering what will be the problem with this picture. Ordinary matter in the mode of a constant travel around the surrounding space of the spiral galaxy. I think it is a very attractive and economic concept.

The last synthesis in physics occurred well over one hundred years ago with James Clark Maxwell. Particle physicist might like to say the Unification of weak nuclear and electromagnetism counts. It only counts if you disregard all physics before the 1900′s. That’s not a synthesis and Einstein knew it. Quantum physics is the problem and the next synthesis is the solution.

I was thinking about what dark matter would look like if it were visible and at first I thought it could be like a planet or star, but then from the idea of repulsion I concluded that it was not a possibility unless there was more Baryonic matter than than dark matter, and then we wouldn’t have planets. (according to the properties repulsion theory.) To draw to a point, I researched further into dark matter and found that some scientists have constructed an image of what dark matter would look like based on data, and it was exactly what I had pictured. Furthermore, I also went on instinct to believe that scientists were wrong about dark energy and dark matter being two separate things, the 96% (or more) of the unseen had to be to mass support my theory of repulsion. As it turned out researchers just announced that they were mistaken about the whole “Dark Energy” thing. I’m not saying that I am right

I predicted two properties all from a little imagination based off of the simple physics we experience and observe in everyday life. The answers to our questions are probably staring us in the face. I highly doubt there will be any interaction between the Baryonic and dark matter, other than a gravitational one, just because of its nature to repel matter and seek a state of equilibrium, theoretically.

I don’t really know, I may sound foolish, is there any truth in what I am suggesting? In terms of a concentration gradient at least? Of course it gets a lot more complicated from there… but I have just started with this idea and it has blossomed since yesterday.

Wayne

Rudi Van Nieuwenhove

I apologize for the “much” discrepancy. Even still, I consider it evenly distributed. “Much” or “most” to me implies an imbalance.

Given the quantity of human feeling, relative to the individual perspective, “much” can be quite a lot and still a minority. Our brains and the thought processes they express evolved as a navigation function in an often hostile environment. So it is reasonable that our default attention is toward whatever is disturbing or suspicious in our environment. Since the inherent survival instinct is to focus on the bad, even if it is a small percentage of our context, this explains alot of negative behavior, from malicious gossip to the ability of demagogues to start wars.

What do spatial and temporal limits imply for our existence?

We are defined by our limits. Without them, we couldn’t exist in the first place, since we would be constantly breaking the very things that make us what we are. No order and no structure.

but left brain and right brain still have to work together to achieve a whole, unitary understanding.

Left and right brain work together like yin and yang. Particles and process permeate our reality. Consider string theory; It seems most of the surface consideration is trying to figure our what the strings are, but in reality they are just a vehicle to explain the vibrations that are the reality, but imply some object.

Perhaps we are inevitably going to transcend the necessity to “think” about interaction in a way that optimizes growth and progression, and whatever organism is created through this lack of necessity to “think” will arise in yet another state that must repeat a similar cycle to which we are now bound.

You are confusing thinking with memory. We do lots of thinking without remembering it. It’s those mind squinching moments that our focus imprints memory which our minds dredge up when we are thinking about thinking. Those are the mental nodes that remain from the much larger network of thinking that we are constantly doing, but forget. We have large complex brains that are capable of lots of calculation and memory, but less developed minds are aware. It is said that insect brains are essentially thermostats. They register energy, more then information. While our minds are stores of information. Even for higher order minds, there will always be that dichotomy between broad awareness(right brain) and focused information(left brain).

God being the union of conscious thought into unconscious thought, the drawing compulsion into unconsciousness from the conscious.

Possibly it’s also connecting these nodes of consciousness to and within their network, whether it is learning to unwrap those kernels of memory so that they meld back into the subconscious network, illuminating it all, or even seeing the network of which we as individuals are the nodes in such a way that we sense the actual network, rather then group focusing on a specific point of reference or concept, such as a religious symbol, monetary issue, or other shiny object.

It is more of the convective cycle of expanding energy and collapsing structure that are the two directions of time, energy going from past to future, as the information/structure goes from future potential to past circumstance. So the raw energy/awareness is constantly going into the future and whenever it picks up too much information/junk code/mutations, the big reset button gets pushed, the old dies off and it resets to a fresh start, with a few additional lessons learned inserted into the genetic code.

Evolution is a process where the environment at a macro scale affects a molecule, DNA. Macro processes affecting micro (quantum) processes and evolves the complexity of life. We don’t even know how that happens, how these scales interact. But, just as they do interact in life on earth, they likely interact in the cosmos. We aren’t ready to assign consciousness to something not alive, we haven’t seen evidence of this (computers and artificial life comes close). But I wonder, are we looking?

Spatial limits to our existence versus temporal limits to our existence. Meaning given so much motion or complexity our temporal limit may eventually hit such a limit and… then what? Why do we fear the limits? What do spatial and temporal limits imply for our existence?

I completely agree with what you mean by the network/process thinking, right brain as you say. Before, I hadn’t attributed time as a consequence of motion to that, but I see it now.

However, and I don’t know if you meant this, but left brain and right brain still have to work together to achieve a whole, unitary understanding. Regardless of how much we integrate our network awareness into our lives, as is presently occurring on this planet, we will still experience node awareness in our daily lives and remain entirely dependent on both to attain any valuable progression of ourselves and our network.

I’ve long thought of how interesting it is to watch water flow, or cells divide, because they seem to do so without having to “think” about it. We are presently at a level in existence where we must think about how we interact with ourselves, our fellows, and the environment. Perhaps those levels beneath us, such as the cellular and atomic, had to transition through a state similar to our present one. Perhaps we are inevitably going to transcend the necessity to “think” about interaction in a way that optimizes growth and progression, and whatever organism is created through this lack of necessity to “think” will arise in yet another state that must repeat a similar cycle to which we are now bound. The “higher” organism must again begin to think about its interaction with itself and its environment (and even other organisms it interacts with beyond itself, ie. other planets of beings such as we).

I would venture to say this higher calling to order and dissolution of complexity to simplicity is what we call God. God being the union of conscious thought into unconscious thought, the drawing compulsion into unconsciousness from the conscious.

Wayne

I said “much,” not “most.” The fact is though, that we have been living in an economic updraft that has made our lives more comfortable, at the potential expense of others on the planet. Unfortunately something else has hit the fan.

If you consider the consequences of the point I’ve been making about time as a consequence of motion, rather than the basis for it, it changes ones perspective from a left brain particulate/node understanding of life and reality, to a more right brain process/network understanding, where what we think of as distinct units flow together in a larger unitary context. We don’t really fear the spatial limits to our existence nearly as much as we do the temporal one.

What would life be like if there was no pain and the consequences thereof. We would be all creating our own reality, just like Bush. The price we pay for feeling in the first place is that much of it is pain.

Without pain, there would be no feeling at all. John, you said yourself that without void there can be no life, well, there can be no pleasure without pain. I also disagree with you that most of feeling is pain. That is simply untrue. One may not consider every moment in their life to be a grand pleasurable ecstasy of experience, but you are not immersed in pain every moment either. There is a constant flow, back and forth between the two and it is our conscious experience that differentiates between the them. Consciousness works to observe the pain arising in our lives, and the more aware one is of such a dual nature reality, will use the experience of that pain as a guide towards pleasure again.

The nature of life is to experience both sides, the dual nature of existence is apparent everywhere, in every moment, and it is only when we become comfortable with both that we can truly live in peace. One can learn nothing in their life without being pushed in a direction they aren’t comfortable with, they must push back. That is why we are here to begin with! We, as the primordial, were pushed against the harsh environment of void and it was we who pushed back. In fact, the more you embrace what we consider good and bad, pleasure and pain, and realize that both are necessary, the richer one’s experience becomes and the more one embraces the true nature of why we are here. We are here to experience, and to experience everything we potentially can.

Feeling never came from pleasure or pain alone. Life never came from energy or void alone. The dual nature of existence, and hence the non-dual, are what immerses us, it is comfort in that thought where a being can truly accept themselves, and accept the cosmos, and act as wholly as potentially possible.

The universe wishes immortality because if it does not persist, it is as good as nothing ever happening before. Einmal ist keinmal, Nietsche said if something happens only once, it is as good as never happening at all. That is why we are here. We are eternal, and every moment we spend acting and participating and feeling in this place, we twinge the next cycle in our own entirely unique way that could never be forgotten. The cosmos remembers indeed, it remembers every single thing we do and have done, every thought and emotion we’ve ever had and will have, and it lives dynamically with us and through us to share in our experiences again, in some new incredible creativity that arises in our every moment, in every moment to come.

However, it seems obvious from what we know about SR/GR/QM and the work of Schwarzschild and what we know about the level of complexity we observe in the universe, and experience ourselves, that the universe is a fairly rigid, strictly controlled affair.

I feel that the universe is indeed a strictly controlled affair. There are fundamental processes that direct it, but I feel those processes are altered by us, by ‘events’ like us that arise within the universe. Think of the concept of complexity in engineering. If the highest consciousness of the universe in the past cycle, ie. before our cognizant horizon of origin, re-engineered its (possibly failing) universe into ours, and perfectly designed the inception of life-directing DNA, the mere fact that they are no longer here to witness the machine automatically implies that we are running renegade, disposed to quite possibly following in our ancestors’ shadow. Following immortality. Engineering the next cycle in our image. Hm?

The very appearance of these ideas is exactly what makes existence so curious. There will never be a lack of outstanding creativity to go around. Creativity drives us. Creativity drives complexity. It is why we can communicate on the internet, it is why there have been men on the moon, it is how we adapt. Novel connections, novel states, all in combination and recombination with themselves and others, this is the drive to complexity. A drive to creativity. Creation even. Not creation in the sense of beginning and end, creation in the sense of beginning. Transcendence and inclusion. There is no end. We are only ever, only always, beginning again and again.

Wayne

It is we who desire immortality, as it is the cosmos who desires immortality.

We desire imortality, but maybe the cosmos seeks mortality. What would life be like if there was no pain and the consequences thereof. We would be all creating our own reality, just like Bush. The price we pay for feeling in the first place is that much of it is pain. In limits there is definition. In definition there are limits.

Consciousness is probably heirarchical. We can observe in our own ecosystem, that our existence (and level of consciousness) depends on certain universal mathematical constaints, on the nature of the inorganic world, on our relationship with the biological world and on sub-conscious aspects of our personal bodily existence…we are made of cells, and so on.

It is justifiable, I believe, to assume that the universe itself is organized in a similar manner. Only a perfect fool would assume that we humans stand at the apex of conscious observation in the universe! At best, we are at an incomplete, intermediate level in the universal process of recognizing itself and acting proactively to assure its survival. However, it seems obvious from what we know about SR/GR/QM and the work of Schwarzschild and what we know about the level of complexity we observe in the universe, and experience ourselves, that the universe is a fairly rigid, strictly controlled affair.

The universe is too far “wild” a place to have, in and of itself, been logically made or created by some being. In fact the word “creation” implies a beginning and the universe is eternal, so the “creation of the universe” is a misnomer. Rather the universe and the consciousness within it have evolved over eternity from a certain set of conditions and constrants, which made existence and consciousness possible, yes, but at the same time placed severe limitations on the way what we observe today could come about and develop over eternal time.

None of what I have said in any way makes the process by which the universe is cumulatively observed, modified and proactively guided over eternity any less awesome. Nor does what I say diminish the fact that our personal relationship with the universe is survival related…the universes survival and existence- and ours.

I like CI’s description of embeddedness. Even before we came to exist, we were there, though the coordinates were different…we might be able to affect the future, or quite possibly even the past, depending on the universal geometry, were we to have (or develop) adequate technology.

I think our very existence as conscious beings is A priori evidence that we live in a universe where, as I say on my site; “Everything which can be done, has been done, and exists somewhere (eternally) in the fabric of space-time…

which leads to Waynes assertion that our level of consciousness, as incomplete as it is , is more than adequate proof that the universe is indeed, in an important sense, aware of itself, and again, depending on the nature of the universal geometry and mass, which most likely are, respectively marginally closed and finite, that the universe is likely proactive over eternity to assure its collective survival, though the universes consciousness, being collective, would be much more vast than anything we could possibly imagine.

And how profound it is that all this complexity and the very existence of space and time could be inextricably linked to the mathematical irrationality of pi!