Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop
Make the desert bloom, now there is a worthwhile occupation.
There are pretty, bright lights in space. There is also a lot of dark dust that isn't pretty at all. In fact, there's a lot more dark dust than bright lights. Don't get too close to the bright lights, they don't care if you exist and won't notice if you are accidentally vaporized or smash into a dust cloud on the way. Looks nice from a distance, will take extraordinary engineering planning to do anything with. It's there, it's our job when we figure out what to do, and we must not fail.
Aside from the non-pysical creator, our thoughts, feelings, and desires are what animate and motivate our physical selves to do the things we do the good and the bad. Emotions result in physical actions. Is time physical? Matter, energy, space, etc didn't just appear magically. They came from somewhere. Can you think of anything physical that doesn't have a non-physical component?
One thing right off the top of my head...
I believe that Grandpierre's ultimate vacuum field may be closer to the physics than Raman's thought field. But better than either of them (as fields) might be your own speculation of an extra time dimension.
The field theories are inevitably stuck with an arrow of time and causation, whereas under the extra time dimension - cause and effect are overthrown along with past, present and future. And superluminal phenomenon would be expected.
Thus an extra time dimension could host all the same phenomenon as Grandpierre's ultimate vacuum field while offering a much greater explanatory power for anomalies of consciousness over time (near death experiences, collective consciousness, faith healing, remote healing, precognition, retrocognition, extrasensory perception, telepathy etc.)
The extra time dimension would also have a greater explanatory power for dark energy...
It certainly appears to be.
Matter, energy, space, etc didn't just appear magically.
They certainly appear to be physical.
Emotions result in physical actions.
And physical things -- drugs, etc., affect emotions. What part of emotion is not the result of brain activity?
Can you think of anything physical that doesn't have a non-physical component?
Can you think of anything non-physical that doesn't require a physical embodiment?
Can you feel, taste, smell, hear, or touch it?
Matter, energy, space, etc didn't just appear magically.
They certainly appear to be physical.
Yes, after they were created from what? Where did they come from?
Can you think of anything non-physical that doesn't require a physical embodiment?
The soul, if you are into religion. Or whatever can create what is physical and non-physical.
A-G, what I'm wondering is whether the primary field of universal consciousness/primary substrate of natural being may be virtually outside of human space-time altogether. Yet still very much within the scope and range of human intelligence....
To me, this is a perfectly mind-boggling idea.
By the way, I dutifully read the two articles you pinged me to. I enjoyed "Constraints on Extra Time Dimensions" very much. I definitely noticed how the authors decided to "file-off" something they had seen as belonging to a hypothetical "time-brane" -- an additional hypothetical time dimension beyond the 3S + 1T four-dimensional space-time that we human beings are steeped in since birth -- to account for certain inconvenient "leakages" from the matter side of physics. (I gather.)
I was also very intrigued by the authors' analysis of "gravitational self-energy." Good grief, I didn't realize that issues relating to the propagation of charges remain such open questions today. The implications for integrating gravity into any Unified Field theory must be staggering in consequence.
Also read that other paper. It definitely left an impression on my mind, even though it really was written for initiates into the mysteries of string theory. I will not bore you with my take on this (taxpayer-funded!) enterprise, unless you hold hot coals to my feet! LOL!
BTW, I think Grandpierre handles these issues with consummate insight and grace. Which is more than I can say for the publicly-funded crowd that, these days, gives us works like "Evidence for F-Theory."
The paper falls short of its own initial abstract: It does not explain the cosmological constant; and it does not explain, or "pictorialize," any type of "interface" between string theory and macroreality.
What it tells you is: Do further experimentation. Put F-theory right up there with two other fundamental constructs, and you've got a real shot at solving all the problems of the universe some time soon.
And by the way, keep those government grants coming meanwhile....
Absolutely. I have a strong belief that we are fragments of whatever created us. I prefer to use term "Creator" when referring to an original being...which will, no doubt, get me chastised by those who are Bible bound.
There has got to be an eternal plan of which we are a functional part. It makes no sense to me that empires like the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Seleucids, Greeks, Romans (and, one day)Americans existed with souls who were gaining learning experiences (some horrendous, without doubt) and that those experiences are not retained and used, albeit unconsciously, in new later birth experiences. Heck, why not earlier birth experiences!
IMHO, there is an eternal circular learning curve.
I've highlighted a lot of stuff in Jane Roberts/Seth. Below is one of my favorite statements...oft referred to:
"It is important that you continue to realize that consciousness is within all physical phenomena. It is vital that you realize your position within nature. Nature is created from within. The personal life that you know rises up from within you, yet it is given. Since you are a part of Being, then in a certain fashion you give yourself the life that is being lived through you."
Believing that statement unfortunately doesn't give one an automatic ticket to the 'good life.' But knowing that we "create our own reality" can help us get at least some understanding of why we're here, where we've been and where we're going.
It also forms a basis on how we will be judged...our accountability, and gives substance to concepts such as rightness and reason, responsibility, morality, etc.
It doesn't matter who studies it. That doesn't make it physical. It is likely more true that everything physical comes from the non-physical than the other way around. Do you think that all existence is limited to only physical things?
Anything that can be studied is pretty much by definition physical. Anything that is beyond study and experiment is pretty much in the realm of faith.
Do you consider mathematics(the mind) as physical?
What do you think interacting with physical means? Are you now changing your question to not interacting with the physical?
More an assertion that anything that can be known is by definition physical. Even the Bible tells us that we cannot know except through metaphor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.