The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby JHL » Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:18 am

Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.

During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.


http://backreaction.blogspot.in/2016/08 ... e.html?m=1

Includes link to longer article.
JHL
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:25 am

JHL wrote:
Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.

During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.


http://backreaction.blogspot.in/2016/08 ... e.html?m=1

Includes link to longer article.


I have a similar type article in my blog:
http://emc2fails.com/wp/index.php/2017/ ... sts-think/

The CERN Large Hadron Collider not working to specifications...

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
http://emc2fails.com
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri May 05, 2017 4:43 am

But from their own perspective...

Last year was a truly remarkable one for CERN, and I am looking forward to another great year in 2017.
..

Turning now to 2017, our objectives are exciting and ambitious in all the domains of the Organization’s engagement. Here I will limit myself to a few examples. It will be an important year for the LHC high-luminosity upgrade, with construction and testing of the first full-length prototypes of both the 11-Tesla dipole and the inner-triplet quadrupole. Tenders for civil engineering at points one and five will be issued this year for adjudication in 2018 and execution during LS2. The year will also see the production of several Technical Design Reports for the Phase-2 upgrades of ATLAS and CMS. The non-LHC programme is also marked by several important milestones: the commissioning and operation of the third HIE-Isolde cryomodule, the connection of the GBAR experiment to ELENA’s new antiproton deceleration ring, the completion of the ICARUS modules at the CERN Neutrino Platform and their shipment to Fermilab (where they will take part in the short-baseline programme as of 2018), the commissioning of the AWAKE electron beam line, and many more. Preparations for CERN’s future (including CLIC, the FCC study, the Physics Beyond Colliders working group and accelerator R&D work) will progress at full speed to meet the deadline of the end of 2018 to submit reports as input for the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics.


src: https://home.cern/cern-people/opinion/2017/01/great-year-ahead
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:53 am

One thing has always puzzled me about the particle collision fans - and I can best explain this with an analogy.
If you take a glass sculpture and smash it into tiny fragments, you are not proving that these fragments actually make up the sculpture simply because there is no known mechanism to somehow reassemble them.
Similarly we have the same problem with life & sentience - you can take a human body & reduce it to it's elementary particles and you will not find a single sign of life or an elementary "life particle" - all you would have is a broken body.

So why do these people assume that these elementary particles are real (they have an almost negligible existence span) and not just broken fragments?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby Webbman » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:18 pm

Smashing a ball of yarn will yield smaller fragments of yarn.

still yarn, but no longer a ball.
Woe to those who pretend to oppose
Webbman
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby lw1990 » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:38 am

neil, 'lifeforms' came from/assembled from 'non-lifeforms', there is nowhere else life can come from, so smashing 'lifeforms' into 'non-life' bits is not just a broken body, it can be reassembled into a potential new life-form, doesn't matter that it's very rare circumstances that this happens or has never been seen before or mankind doesn't know how yet, we know the universe works on the principle that simple things build up in complexity, not complex things like a divine creator creates simple things and complex things as they dream up in magic spirit chakra land
lw1990
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby Webbman » Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:36 am

lw1990 wrote:neil, 'lifeforms' came from/assembled from 'non-lifeforms', there is nowhere else life can come from, so smashing 'lifeforms' into 'non-life' bits is not just a broken body, it can be reassembled into a potential new life-form, doesn't matter that it's very rare circumstances that this happens or has never been seen before or mankind doesn't know how yet, we know the universe works on the principle that simple things build up in complexity, not complex things like a divine creator creates simple things and complex things as they dream up in magic spirit chakra land


the mainstream model has dozens of primordial particles which also defies your simple to complex rule..which I agree with, but I wouldn't necessarily be arrogant either and think that YOU are the most complex thing that exists.

The universe is very old and lets face it, most people aren't advanced enough to even treat each other with respect and dignity. Certainly no room there for arrogance.
Woe to those who pretend to oppose
Webbman
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby ToEmaster » Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:59 pm

Hi,
There are many things wrong with the current experimentatation methods:
QUantum Mechanics ignores the geometry and gyromagnetic properties of elementary and subatomic particles
Modern physics ignores the presence of an omnipresent universal medium.
It gives human contrivances properties and function, like empty space and time that don’t exist in nature.
Uses mathematics, another human contrivance, to create reality.
Conducts experiments with particle beams, beams of electromagnetic radiation and lasers that don’t exist in nature and applies the results to natural phenomena.
Modern physics is projecting limited human concepts to universal principles. Like everything has to have a beginning and an end with absolute time passing through, yet allows local relativity in space and time, and not seeing the conflict between the two.
Willing to introduce arbitrary concepts like dark matter, dark energy, multiple dimensions to remedy clear contradictions.
Willing to allow exceptions to fundamental logic like causality, conscious observation affecting results, conservation of energy, exceeding the speed of light to remedy apparent problems with current models.
It ignores common sense that the Universe doesn’t have a calculator, ruler, rational numbers, a dozen magic particles and different forces for every occasion.
And they wonder why the current models don’t work.
The universe has only one component where form and function are one and the same: Electromagnetism
Simplicity, elegance and common sense are the greatest measures of intelligence.
ToEmaster
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:22 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby neilwilkes » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:45 am

lw1990 wrote:neil, 'lifeforms' came from/assembled from 'non-lifeforms', there is nowhere else life can come from, so smashing 'lifeforms' into 'non-life' bits is not just a broken body, it can be reassembled into a potential new life-form, doesn't matter that it's very rare circumstances that this happens or has never been seen before or mankind doesn't know how yet, we know the universe works on the principle that simple things build up in complexity, not complex things like a divine creator creates simple things and complex things as they dream up in magic spirit chakra land


Not sure I understand exactly what it is you are trying to say here - any chance of some clarification please?
The problem as I see it is that we do not know where and how life arose at all - and it even seems we are not sure just what actually does constitute "life" as we are now discovering so called extremophiles in environments supposedly so hostile to life it should not exist - in Reactor coolant is one example, in vents on the sea bed - life is everywhere we have looked. It seems to be ubiquitous.
But I digress & apologise - although I really would welcome some clarification on just what your point is please?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby crawler » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:37 pm

Is Einstein to blame for the state of modern particle physics?
Is the recognition of an aether the answer?
And recognition that the primary quantum particle is a quasi-particle, the free photon?
And that free photons when confined (ie when they form a loop)(they bite their tail) form proper elementary particles, eg electron quarks etc?
Would that be a good new beginning?
crawler
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:13 pm

crawler wrote:And recognition that the primary quantum particle is a quasi-particle, the free photon?
...?


Isn't that only replacing one squiggle with another ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby crawler » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:41 pm

seasmith wrote:
crawler wrote:And recognition that the primary quantum particle is a quasi-particle, the free photon?...?
Isn't that only replacing one squiggle with another ?
I think that u have it correct -- in the standard model the photon is a squiggle.
I like the photon of JG Williamson, which is little more than a squiggle.
Conrad Ranzan's photon is better, it annihilates aether as it propagates along, & it is an excitation of aether.
But my photon is better, a central helical body going at c (annihilating aether), with photaenos emanating radially at say 5c (too annihilating aether), both being different kinds of excitations of the aether, the photaenos giving us charge & electric & magnetic fields.

In the standard model a photon is an em field & an em field is a photon (or something like that).
crawler
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby Bin-Ra » Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:48 am

neilwilkes wrote:One thing has always puzzled me about the particle collision fans - and I can best explain this with an analogy.
If you take a glass sculpture and smash it into tiny fragments, you are not proving that these fragments actually make up the sculpture simply because there is no known mechanism to somehow reassemble them.
Similarly we have the same problem with life & sentience - you can take a human body & reduce it to it's elementary particles and you will not find a single sign of life or an elementary "life particle" - all you would have is a broken body.

So why do these people assume that these elementary particles are real (they have an almost negligible existence span) and not just broken fragments?



I see human consciousness and perception-response in terms of archetypal ideas that embody or logically extend their predicate (idea). So the sense-identity of an independent consciousness or power to define, predict and control a seemingly separate life, world or facets of itself is an idea of disintegration, of a split mind from which comes not only a fragmented or self-conflicted experience, but the Humpty Dumpty invocation of the 'King' as the idea of order over chaos - as distinct to unfolding order through apparent chaos.

This can also be seen as the interjection of a 'self-conscious' inhibition of love or self-recognition (as being), and of hate - as the feared or denied expression of attack. And so the development of personal and social constructs of conditional 'loves and hates' operate the exclusion or at least suppression of both the truly intimate and the fearfully destructive expressions of power and powerlessness, as equally threatening to the order of a narrative continuity and thus associated and confused with each other.

Attack is thus persisted in as a managed or controlled splitting of consciousness that is itself the basis for the experience-existence of such a construct IN consciousness. The subjective consciousness is thus subjected or rather a willing subjection to the parameters that maintain self in image - as the focus within the experience of being both in a world while in judgement or definition of it.

So a priesthood smashing 'adams' in a vastly complex instrument demanding great sacrifice (ongoing cost) is maintained and maintaining the model or archetypal picture of their own predicate as if reverse engineering life so as to replace or upgrade it to a better system of control.

Greed as a need for possession and control is an insatiable sense of lack, where there is never 'enough' and any symptoms of lack are always too much, and so its pattern is one a self-deprivation within a negatively self-reinforcing loop.

The patterning of minds in denial, is a reversal - such that the truth (running away or being driven by fear of chaos) is presented to self and other as a mask of control over and alignment in saving from, overcoming or escaping 'chaos'. Losing 'face' is thus exposure to lack of substance - and support or inclusion.

All of this is emotionally charged and mentally 'ruled' or filtered to run by default as learned subconscious routines or habits of conditioned reaction - taken or acted from as presumed consensual reality.

The priesthoods of any claim to knowledge protect that claim to maintain their social identity as power, privilege and position. So the construct of complex financial instruments as the means to pass off toxic doubt in concealed denials is simply self-survival operating through the mental capacity for dissociation.

Failure is therefore built in by design, such that 'War on ignorance' or on anything else is never intended to be resolved but exactly the opposite - and it is this characteristic reversal that operates the signature of presenting the forms of a wished-for outcome, as the cover for the denial of anything but token moments of seeming promise.

Thus we have the doublethink of minds running self-contradictions with a straight face. Or rather a learned mask - that hates to love, while loving to hate. This may seem extreme, but the undoing of a false sense of self in image is greatly defended against, and the engagement in its satisfactions is no less protected. Albeit there is no rest or peace in either.

Digging under our own foundations - in terms of our 'world-view' as a sense of deep discovery, meets what it does not expect. Because they are no more 'solid' than for example - turtle island. But nothing created by the Creative is without power, and the recognition of the Creative as the source and nature of power is in acceptance and alignment with it as both self-honesty or congruency, and joy or wholeness of purpose.

This is also to say that the seemingly separating or segregative and conflicted perspective is undone by the reintegrative movement to the appreciation of a release from distortion to a fullness of being.
Unified purpose embodies an unconflicted or un-split mind - and shared purpose is the nature of minds in synchronous movement - which is also called 'one mind in many'.

The idea of the one in the many is also that of the whole in every part - even in every 'adam'. True part-whole relationship is infinite in being edgeless or without measure. This is the re-cognition of wholeness in any part, moment, or situation.

As long as we feed the troll, it will use our collective funding to hypnotise or terrorise us. Everything true is worthy of appreciation, and everything untrue given true allegiance is costing us the moment of sharing the true. Feeding or attending one is starving or disregarding the other. Seeking to keep both is setting a goal of conflict and protecting it as our self.

While we are suffering the blows of outrageous collisions, we are in the realm of sorting the false from the true in order to keep one and let the other go. To oppose our healing or wholing is to build more defences against the undoing of our pet projects and projections, demanding ever more sacrifice as an ever deeper, denser, darker and more paralysing experience of fragmented compartmentalised and hidden self-hate in all its quarks and peculiar shifting momentum.

The entanglement of projected fear is as if we all hold parts of each other in associations of frozen conflict, as unrecognised debt or withholding/withdrawal. The releasing of which is to a re-cognition of a shared appreciation of freedom to move and be more truly aligned instead of being conformed to a mutual sacrificial displacement map or model.

The movement of life as the simple desire to know and be known, can of course play in particle physics as it can in knowing itself through the act of giving the measure of its own acceptance to any 'object of affection'. But the key is the predicate from which or through which such universal motivation arises. The scientific desire for the uncovering appreciation of the already true, accepts the recognition of the false as false, and therefore as the releasing from any status as a foundation from which to build or extend or make identity from.

Truth is self-revealing - but not to an ongoing commitment to making something else in its place. Yet even this will - in time - generate the conditions or the ripeness of the willingness to listen and align in the stirring of truth that may first seem disturbing, however gentle the knock at the door.
Bin-Ra
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby Sithri » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:53 pm

Bin-Ra wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:One thing has always puzzled me about the particle collision fans - and I can best explain this with an analogy.
If you take a glass sculpture and smash it into tiny fragments, you are not proving that these fragments actually make up the sculpture simply because there is no known mechanism to somehow reassemble them.
Similarly we have the same problem with life & sentience - you can take a human body & reduce it to it's elementary particles and you will not find a single sign of life or an elementary "life particle" - all you would have is a broken body.

So why do these people assume that these elementary particles are real (they have an almost negligible existence span) and not just broken fragments?



I see human consciousness and perception-response in terms of archetypal ideas that embody or logically extend their predicate (idea). So the sense-identity of an independent consciousness or power to define, predict and control a seemingly separate life, world or facets of itself is an idea of disintegration, of a split mind from which comes not only a fragmented or self-conflicted experience, but the Humpty Dumpty invocation of the 'King' as the idea of order over chaos - as distinct to unfolding order through apparent chaos.

This can also be seen as the interjection of a 'self-conscious' inhibition of love or self-recognition (as being), and of hate - as the feared or denied expression of attack. And so the development of personal and social constructs of conditional 'loves and hates' operate the exclusion or at least suppression of both the truly intimate and the fearfully destructive expressions of power and powerlessness, as equally threatening to the order of a narrative continuity and thus associated and confused with each other.

Attack is thus persisted in as a managed or controlled splitting of consciousness that is itself the basis for the experience-existence of such a construct IN consciousness. The subjective consciousness is thus subjected or rather a willing subjection to the parameters that maintain self in image - as the focus within the experience of being both in a world while in judgement or definition of it.

So a priesthood smashing 'adams' in a vastly complex instrument demanding great sacrifice (ongoing cost) is maintained and maintaining the model or archetypal picture of their own predicate as if reverse engineering life so as to replace or upgrade it to a better system of control.

Greed as a need for possession and control is an insatiable sense of lack, where there is never 'enough' and any symptoms of lack are always too much, and so its pattern is one a self-deprivation within a negatively self-reinforcing loop.

The patterning of minds in denial, is a reversal - such that the truth (running away or being driven by fear of chaos) is presented to self and other as a mask of control over and alignment in saving from, overcoming or escaping 'chaos'. Losing 'face' is thus exposure to lack of substance - and support or inclusion.

All of this is emotionally charged and mentally 'ruled' or filtered to run by default as learned subconscious routines or habits of conditioned reaction - taken or acted from as presumed consensual reality.

The priesthoods of any claim to knowledge protect that claim to maintain their social identity as power, privilege and position. So the construct of complex financial instruments as the means to pass off toxic doubt in concealed denials is simply self-survival operating through the mental capacity for dissociation.

Failure is therefore built in by design, such that 'War on ignorance' or on anything else is never intended to be resolved but exactly the opposite - and it is this characteristic reversal that operates the signature of presenting the forms of a wished-for outcome, as the cover for the denial of anything but token moments of seeming promise.

Thus we have the doublethink of minds running self-contradictions with a straight face. Or rather a learned mask - that hates to love, while loving to hate. This may seem extreme, but the undoing of a false sense of self in image is greatly defended against, and the engagement in its satisfactions is no less protected. Albeit there is no rest or peace in either.

Digging under our own foundations - in terms of our 'world-view' as a sense of deep discovery, meets what it does not expect. Because they are no more 'solid' than for example - turtle island. But nothing created by the Creative is without power, and the recognition of the Creative as the source and nature of power is in acceptance and alignment with it as both self-honesty or congruency, and joy or wholeness of purpose.

This is also to say that the seemingly separating or segregative and conflicted perspective is undone by the reintegrative movement to the appreciation of a release from distortion to a fullness of being.
Unified purpose embodies an unconflicted or un-split mind - and shared purpose is the nature of minds in synchronous movement - which is also called 'one mind in many'.

The idea of the one in the many is also that of the whole in every part - even in every 'adam'. True part-whole relationship is infinite in being edgeless or without measure. This is the re-cognition of wholeness in any part, moment, or situation.

As long as we feed the troll, it will use our collective funding to hypnotise or terrorise us. Everything true is worthy of appreciation, and everything untrue given true allegiance is costing us the moment of sharing the true. Feeding or attending one is starving or disregarding the other. Seeking to keep both is setting a goal of conflict and protecting it as our self.

While we are suffering the blows of outrageous collisions, we are in the realm of sorting the false from the true in order to keep one and let the other go. To oppose our healing or wholing is to build more defences against the undoing of our pet projects and projections, demanding ever more sacrifice as an ever deeper, denser, darker and more paralysing experience of fragmented compartmentalised and hidden self-hate in all its quarks and peculiar shifting momentum.

The entanglement of projected fear is as if we all hold parts of each other in associations of frozen conflict, as unrecognised debt or withholding/withdrawal. The releasing of which is to a re-cognition of a shared appreciation of freedom to move and be more truly aligned instead of being conformed to a mutual sacrificial displacement map or model.

The movement of life as the simple desire to know and be known, can of course play in particle physics as it can in knowing itself through the act of giving the measure of its own acceptance to any 'object of affection'. But the key is the predicate from which or through which such universal motivation arises. The scientific desire for the uncovering appreciation of the already true, accepts the recognition of the false as false, and therefore as the releasing from any status as a foundation from which to build or extend or make identity from.

Truth is self-revealing - but not to an ongoing commitment to making something else in its place. Yet even this will - in time - generate the conditions or the ripeness of the willingness to listen and align in the stirring of truth that may first seem disturbing, however gentle the knock at the door.


While I enjoy your remarks about the dynamics of consciousness and its phenomena, no where in that talk did you mention a new outlook on these phenomena nor a conclusive statement on the path to knowledge. If what is true is true, how is it true as opposed to falsehood? The 'creative' is just as prone to lies, secrets, knowledge, as well as truth! I agree that truth from the first-person perspective of consciousness there will not result in an ongoing commitment to make something else in their place, as the phenomena of consciousness are self-permitting and cannot be anything other than an 'adam.' Identity never forms from science; science is a question of how and not of existential import of why, and meaning is a question of learning from nature than about nature. It appears that you are searching for 'adams' of science rather than consciousness, or rather these together, and this would mean that molecules and atoms are not simply different hierarchal phenomena, but rather also appearances that have a certain atomistic view themselves, like you said that because there is always a part to a whole the part becomes a whole. It appears, however, that the further we dig, the further we empty ourselves of an 'elan vital' that would be an explanation for our immaterial consciousness and the existence and coming-forth of 'life' from a periodic table of elements. To accept the already true as true and the already false as false is what you deny and accept in the same breath. To stand upon the shoulders of giants, yet to topple them, both to save identity, but yet you claim the latter is 'healing' and 'wholing'. I would say that accepting the wholly alien while simultaneously accepting the self-evident is the key to 'wholing' as it opens up a vista of unknown, yet shows that these processes are known in 'truth' which is the key to the entirety of the mixture of immaterial first-person consciousness and matter itself: for instance, the cognitive capabilities of plants who lack a brain and nervous system yet defy our conceptions of how 'non-existent', 'dumb' or 'baseless', or their opposites, a plant consciousness would be.
Sithri
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

Unread postby Bin-Ra » Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:47 pm

While I enjoy your remarks about the dynamics of consciousness and its phenomena, no where in that talk did you mention a new outlook on these phenomena nor a conclusive statement on the path to knowledge. If what is true is true, how is it true as opposed to falsehood? The 'creative' is just as prone to lies, secrets, knowledge, as well as truth! I agree that truth from the first-person perspective of consciousness there will not result in an ongoing commitment to make something else in their place, as the phenomena of consciousness are self-permitting and cannot be anything other than an 'adam.' Identity never forms from science; science is a question of how and not of existential import of why, and meaning is a question of learning from nature than about nature. It appears that you are searching for 'adams' of science rather than consciousness, or rather these together, and this would mean that molecules and atoms are not simply different hierarchal phenomena, but rather also appearances that have a certain atomistic view themselves, like you said that because there is always a part to a whole the part becomes a whole. It appears, however, that the further we dig, the further we empty ourselves of an 'elan vital' that would be an explanation for our immaterial consciousness and the existence and coming-forth of 'life' from a periodic table of elements. To accept the already true as true and the already false as false is what you deny and accept in the same breath. To stand upon the shoulders of giants, yet to topple them, both to save identity, but yet you claim the latter is 'healing' and 'wholing'. I would say that accepting the wholly alien while simultaneously accepting the self-evident is the key to 'wholing' as it opens up a vista of unknown, yet shows that these processes are known in 'truth' which is the key to the entirety of the mixture of immaterial first-person consciousness and matter itself: for instance, the cognitive capabilities of plants who lack a brain and nervous system yet defy our conceptions of how 'non-existent', 'dumb' or 'baseless', or their opposites, a plant consciousness would be.



Perhaps if we became acquainted with our respective use of terms we would find much in common.
I recall not capitalising 'creative' as Creative though I had an urge to. Many assign 'creative' to what I might call miscreative - or the split mind in division, conflict and dissociation. That is not open Creation but a closed mind of a substitute 'reality'.

What are we 'digging with' and why or for what purpose? Is such a mega-funded project really a search for truth?
The use of a mind of mechanism brings mechanically framed results.
If what we seek is only the 'maths' by which to define, predict and control, then we won't let truth get in the way of a good story (corporate/consumer marketising or weaponising).

Searching for truth out-from a belief in lack and separation brings an experience of reinforcement to current belief.
In other words a sense of lack to overcome or escape (the stick and carrot).

That there is no 'self' apart from the observed does not change that the extension of self is the measure of the meaning given and received. (Garbage in; garbage out).

The mind of definition is a differentiation from which an experience is received and lived or shared. Focusing in the experience forgets the definition - like narcissus in reflected image. At least while the shoe fits - the foot is forgotten.

Recognition and release of the mind of definition as control, yields to the Creative - innate to the movement of being in wholeness, and is received as a gift of insight, recognition, synchronicity etc.

I agree that the separation of the biological or living organism from the molecular organisation or 'material' is no more real than that of any identification in specialness - and yet there are resonant vibrational qualities to what we then experience as different 'levels' of existence.

God is no less in a fingernail than a sand grain or a brick - but not 'IN' so much as through.
The material or physicalised world is a model that we experience ourselves IN - when we are no more IN it than our focus determines. (I am not IN thunderbolts forum either - but that is a metaphor of interface).

My sense of Creation is wholeness that never leaves the Mind of its Creator - and so our true mind is never separate from its Source-Nature while a misidentification runs as if in its own spin - but can not leave the its Creator/Creation regardless the split of conflicted mind in self-imaged or defined limitation.

I wrote this too late the other night and came back later.
I feel the mind in diversion has to look where the answer is NOT - in order to protect the problem as the source of its 'sense of self'. This is reflected in the world in terms of budgets and funding for anything but a true disclosure.


but the mind can be used to provide the experience of a projected reality as its own image and identify and defend it as its reality - and so set up conflicted mind that generates a sense of separation
Bin-Ra
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm

Next

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest