Entangled Minds

[StevenO]

You are the thought of a thought. When you 'die' you go back to being a thought. When you are done with metempsychosis you go back to being the thinker. That's my thoughts on it, I think.

You think we better go and DO something now since thinking is better saved for another place and time ?

[Grey Cloud]

You are the thought of a thought. When you 'die' you go back to being a thought. When you are done with metempsychosis you go back to being the thinker. That's my thoughts on it, I think.

You think we better go and DO something now since thinking is better saved for another place and time ?

Thought precedes action; mental precedes physical; Mind precedes the Universe. There is no other place and or time; there is only the Eternal Now. We are currently experiencing the Eternal Now in very sloooooooooow motion. We haven't got the sense we were born with.

[StevenO]

Thought precedes action; mental precedes physical; Mind precedes the Universe. There is no other place and or time; there is only the Eternal Now. We are currently experiencing the Eternal Now in very sloooooooooow motion. We haven't got the sense we were born with.

OK. I can understand the eternal 'now' since time and space are physical properties that arise on an equal footing out of the basic concept of change(or motion) in the universe. I agree that we exist on the very slow side of the physical universe (though an antimatter being would not agree to that ).

But, I cannot understand how thought would precede the physical universe. Now matter how convenient that would seem, it skips the hard work. Logically thought would precede the existence of a human being: 'cogito, ergo sum'. However, the physical universe has to be build from the ground up starting at an all pervasive 'unity' (unit change/motion) to disturbances of symmetry that create basic phenomena like space, time, radiation, primitive particles merging to more complex phenomena like mass, gravity and atoms and physical properties that build on top of that, like e.g. heat, electricity, magnetism, material aggregates and the cosmological cycle.

That last level will allow something like a 'thought', which for the ease of concept I deem equivalent to electronic signals. It seems to me you are skipping the first three levels to start circling at this last level right away. That does by no means account how 'thought' can arise out of this 'Eternal Now' for me.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,

But, I cannot understand how thought would precede the physical universe. Now matter how convenient that would seem, it skips the hard work.

You are thinking like a materialist. Can you do something physical without first thinking about it? Who or what did the hard work you mention? How would/does the physical Universe function if there is no thought/thinking behind it?
[I would say that the Titans did the hard work. Titans = 'strainers'. Whether 'strain' = 'exertion' or 'filter' ]

Logically thought would precede the existence of a human being: 'cogito, ergo sum'.

That would depend upon how you define existence and human being. I think in terms of everything you can think of as existing but only somethings having being. I see us as being human. See the story of Prometheus (a Titan ). 'I think therefore I am' is incorrect. I am therefore I think would be more to my way of thinking. Or, simply, I am.

There are several steps between Unity and the physical Universe The physical Universe starts with Okeanus and Tethys (First generation Titans). Or perhaps this might be more to your tastes:

We start with the archetypal, the world as an idea, a thought, a mathematical conception such as space, which contains all things. To this idea we add a creative impulse, and the world is endowed with a will to unfold itself and we enter the sphere of time, of thought in extension. From this unfolding emerges form - geometricity, or a multiplication of spaces, shadows of things to be. So far there is no materiality; only mathematics, numbers, and letters; symbols, of shapes which are still dreaming. Lastly, in these forms movement is born and they become what we call substantial; then only do we enter the physical world of action - of materialized thought.
JFC Fuller - The Secret Wisdom of the Qabalah. Page 36.

That last level will allow something like a 'thought', which for the ease of concept I deem equivalent to electronic signals.

How do you get thought from the thoughtless? Electronic signals in the brain are the effect of thought not the cause.
Thought does not arise out of the Eternal Now. Nothing arises out of the E.N. There is nowhere for it to arise to. One Mind, lots of thoughts.

[StevenO]

Hi Steven,

But, I cannot understand how thought would precede the physical universe. Now matter how convenient that would seem, it skips the hard work.

You are thinking like a materialist. Can you do something physical without first thinking about it? Who or what did the hard work you mention? How would/does the physical Universe function if there is no thought/thinking behind it?
[I would say that the Titans did the hard work. Titans = 'strainers'. Whether 'strain' = 'exertion' or 'filter' ]

Well...in physics we have to compensate for 'reality distortion' by the observer perspective. Being limited by sensory and brain capacity is one of these typical distortions. Otherwise, please explain me how the universe can arise out of thought if we are not even able to understand a simple thing like gravity?

Logically thought would precede the existence of a human being: 'cogito, ergo sum'.

That would depend upon how you define existence and human being. I think in terms of everything you can think of as existing but only somethings having being. I see us as being human. See the story of Prometheus (a Titan ). 'I think therefore I am' is incorrect. I am therefore I think would be more to my way of thinking. Or, simply, I am.

That is also a matter of perspective. From philosophical standpoint your position is logical. From physical perspective, the human presents an gross abberation of reality. What if we would be able to see things propagating at the speed of light for instance?

There are several steps between Unity and the physical Universe The physical Universe starts with Okeanus and Tethys (First generation Titans). Or perhaps this might be more to your tastes:

We start with the archetypal, the world as an idea, a thought, a mathematical conception such as space, which contains all things. To this idea we add a creative impulse, and the world is endowed with a will to unfold itself and we enter the sphere of time, of thought in extension. From this unfolding emerges form - geometricity, or a multiplication of spaces, shadows of things to be. So far there is no materiality; only mathematics, numbers, and letters; symbols, of shapes which are still dreaming. Lastly, in these forms movement is born and they become what we call substantial; then only do we enter the physical world of action - of materialized thought.
JFC Fuller - The Secret Wisdom of the Qabalah. Page 36.

They got it all in incorrect order. Movement comes before time,space and form.

That last level will allow something like a 'thought', which for the ease of concept I deem equivalent to electronic signals.

How do you get thought from the thoughtless? Electronic signals in the brain are the effect of thought not the cause.
Thought does not arise out of the Eternal Now. Nothing arises out of the E.N. There is nowhere for it to arise to. One Mind, lots of thoughts.

You seem to assume everything materializes out of thought. That is just a human perspective. Everything in your computer is represented as electronic signals and conceptually the representation of an external object in computer memory or your brain are not different. On a lower level, the fact that an atom 'remembers' its shape could be labeled as 'thought'.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,

You wrote:Otherwise, please explain me how the universe can arise out of thought if we are not even able to understand a simple thing like gravity?

I don't see how the understanding of gravity has any relation to the idea of the Universe aring out of thought. Does gravity influence your thoughts?

From physical perspective, the human presents an gross abberation of reality. What if we would be able to see things propagating at the speed of light for instance?

How can humans be a gross abberation of reality when we are part of reality? If we could could see things prpagating at the speed of light then we we see the same underlying principles there as we do now at our present speed.

They got it all in incorrect order. Movement comes before time,space and form.

Nope. They are correct. Movement is part of the physical realm. Only physical objects can move. And you may want to ask yourself what causes the movement to begin.

[1]You seem to assume everything materializes out of thought. [2]That is just a human perspective. [3]Everything in your computer is represented as electronic signals and conceptually the representation of an external object in computer memory or your brain are not different. [4]On a lower level, the fact that an atom 'remembers' its shape could be labeled as 'thought'.

[1] Yep.
[2] What other perspective is possible for a human?
[3] A computer was a thought (in a human mind) before it was an assemblage of hardware. The similarities between the working of a computer and a human brain are because the computer was invented by a human. If there was a computer invented by, e.g. a bee, then the human would not be able to use/understand it (unless the human understood the workings of a bee's brain).
[4] It may not be the atom which is 'remembering' the atom's shape. It could be Proteus or Nereus.

[StevenO]

Hi Steven,

You wrote:Otherwise, please explain me how the universe can arise out of thought if we are not even able to understand a simple thing like gravity?

I don't see how the understanding of gravity has any relation to the idea of the Universe aring out of thought. Does gravity influence your thoughts?

We have a mental image of the universe in our thoughts, but sofar no human has come up with an acceptable explanation of gravity. So, apparently our thought process is not able to comprehend the universe far beyond our senses. Now, how can you assume then that there would be a thought process that is intelligent enough to have the universe arise from it if we know from human experience that is not the case?

From physical perspective, the human presents an gross abberation of reality. What if we would be able to see things propagating at the speed of light for instance?

How can humans be a gross abberation of reality when we are part of reality? If we could could see things prpagating at the speed of light then we we see the same underlying principles there as we do now at our present speed.

I did not say that humans are not real but that our senses have very limited capability, including our brain, that for 80% is dedicated to processing the inputs from our eyes. That puts us in a position that does not allow us to have a direct look at the very large (cosmological), the very small (quantum) or the very fast(atomic). As such the physical theories concerning these parts resemble theology or fairy tales even though physical observations tells us things are happening that are real, but in no way comparable to what we daily observe with our senses. If we could see with the speed of light some of these things would be part of our vocabulary. Doves can process vision with about 200Hz while we can see with only 20Hz. That's one reason why they fly better than we do

They got it all in incorrect order. Movement comes before time,space and form.

Nope. They are correct. Movement is part of the physical realm. Only physical objects can move. And you may want to ask yourself what causes the movement to begin.

'Begin' only gets a meaning when the physical property of time arises out of motion. You will have to repeat a motion for that. Both space and time are repititions of motion. Motion can logically exist before space and time but not the other way around. A universe in unit motion is featureless but has the ingredient to create space and time. Next one can prove that all physical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time, so that is how our physical universe moves into existence.

[1]You seem to assume everything materializes out of thought. [2]That is just a human perspective. [3]Everything in your computer is represented as electronic signals and conceptually the representation of an external object in computer memory or your brain are not different. [4]On a lower level, the fact that an atom 'remembers' its shape could be labeled as 'thought'.

[1] Yep.
[2] What other perspective is possible for a human?
[3] A computer was a thought (in a human mind) before it was an assemblage of hardware. The similarities between the working of a computer and a human brain are because the computer was invented by a human. If there was a computer invented by, e.g. a bee, then the human would not be able to use/understand it (unless the human understood the workings of a bee's brain).
[4] It may not be the atom which is 'remembering' the atom's shape. It could be Proteus or Nereus.

[1] At least that is clear.
[2] , a physicist will not agree, but they are still human
[3] The same can be said of a human or deity if you prefer. I hold that everybody has to adhere to the laws of physics, even the pandemonium. There are no locations or times in our universe more equal than others.
[4] I hope for Proteus or Nereus that their atoms stay in shape.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
You wrote:

We have a mental image of the universe in our thoughts, but sofar no human has come up with an acceptable explanation of gravity. So, apparently our thought process is not able to comprehend the universe far beyond our senses. Now, how can you assume then that there would be a thought process that is intelligent enough to have the universe arise from it if we know from human experience that is not the case?

The Universe IS our mental image. I don't see the logic of your argument here. I don't see how an 'acceptable explanation of gravity' affects anything. The world still turns. As I said earlier, Aphrodite explains it for me.
I assume that there are humans more intelligent than me, so it it is not a great leap, for me, to assume that there is that which is more intelligent than humans. The Universe IS the thought process. Once, not so very long ago, we had no experience of heavier than air flight, many thought it was impossible but somebody thought it was possible.

I did not say that humans are not real but that our senses have very limited capability, including our brain, that for 80% is dedicated to processing the inputs from our eyes. That puts us in a position that does not allow us to have a direct look at the very large
(cosmological), the very small (quantum) or the very fast (atomic). As such the physical theories concerning these parts resemble theology or fairy tales even though physical observations tells us things are happening that are real, but in no way comparable to what we daily observe with our senses. If we could see with the speed of light some of these things would be part of our vocabulary. Doves can process vision with about 200Hz while we can see with only 20Hz. That's one reason why they fly better than we do.

I'll rephrase the question: what is aberrant about humans?
It is precisely because of the limitations of our senses that all ancient cultures practiced meditation and what the Greeks called Reason (i.e. some function of the higher-mind or an altered state of consciousness), rather than the senses/brain combo we use today. The solidity and physicality our senses report to us is an illusion created by those senses. This is why scince is struggling at both the macro and micro scales. Nobody has experienced billions of years in time or hundreds of light years distance and I doubt that anyone can truly imagine them. At the other end they are chasing shadows trying to catch the fundamental particle or grain of matter.

'Begin' only gets a meaning when the physical property of time arises out of motion. You will have to repeat a motion for that. Both space and time are repititions of motion. Motion can logically exist before space and time but not the other way around. A universe in unit motion
is featureless but has the ingredient to create space and time. Next one can prove that all physical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time, so that is how our physical universe moves into existence.

I'll stick with my view. The concept of movement can pre-exist anything actually capable of moving but movment itself can only take place when
there is something moveable. The movement can be the result of something which is itself unmoving or unmoveable.
The non-moving Universe is 'featureless'. Space and time are epiphenomena of thought.

The same can be said of a human or deity if you prefer. I hold that everybody has to adhere to the laws of physics, even the pandemonium. There are no locations or times in our universe more equal than others.

It is certainly true of humans; that is partly what is meant by 'God created man in his image' and other, similar notions from around the world. It is also true for deity, if by deity, you mean man's notion of God or gods. Man also creates God (and gods) in his image. It is not the Laws of physics which everything must obey but the Laws of the Universe. Man-made laws can be cirumvented or even ignored. The laws of
the Universe cannot, Ananke takes care of that.
I will agree that there is no time or location more equal to another, although I could say that the Earth is the centre of the Universe.

Proteus does not have atoms, he is just a thought. The thoughts of his thoughts are atoms. Proteus is known as a shape-shifter. He could be said to be the personification of the atomic world if you like, or of the malleabilty, interchangeability or plasticity of matter. (Nereus is essentially the same character/concept).

[StevenO]

We have a mental image of the universe in our thoughts, but sofar no human has come up with an acceptable explanation of gravity. So, apparently our thought process is not able to comprehend the universe far beyond our senses. Now, how can you assume then that there would be a thought process that is intelligent enough to have the universe arise from it if we know from human experience that is not the case?

The Universe IS our mental image. I don't see the logic of your argument here. I don't see how an 'acceptable explanation of gravity' affects anything. The world still turns. As I said earlier, Aphrodite explains it for me.
I assume that there are humans more intelligent than me, so it it is not a great leap, for me, to assume that there is that which is more intelligent than humans. The Universe IS the thought process. Once, not so very long ago, we had no experience of heavier than air flight, many thought it was impossible but somebody thought it was possible.

The intelligence of our mutated ape brains has a pretty small variation, so seen our extremely limited understanding of the physical universe for me it means a giant leap to assume that there is an intelligence that can create our universe from mere thought.

We always knew that flight was possible since birds have been flying since history.

I'll rephrase the question: what is aberrant about humans?
It is precisely because of the limitations of our senses that all ancient cultures practiced meditation and what the Greeks called Reason (i.e. some function of the higher-mind or an altered state of consciousness), rather than the senses/brain combo we use today. The solidity and physicality our senses report to us is an illusion created by those senses. This is why scince is struggling at both the macro and micro scales. Nobody has experienced billions of years in time or hundreds of light years distance and I doubt that anyone can truly imagine them. At the other end they are chasing shadows trying to catch the fundamental particle or grain of matter.

We now that physicality is not an illusion because of our physics experiments. Science is not struggling at the macro or micro scales since the measurements are very real, but our brains are struggling to grasp it. The reason we are chasing shadows is that we fail to see that there is a reciprocal backside to our universe that is fully real but not directly visible except as fields and other patterns of energy.

'Begin' only gets a meaning when the physical property of time arises out of motion. You will have to repeat a motion for that. Both space and time are repititions of motion. Motion can logically exist before space and time but not the other way around. A universe in unit motion
is featureless but has the ingredient to create space and time. Next one can prove that all physical constants can be expressed as ratio's of space and time, so that is how our physical universe moves into existence.

I'll stick with my view. The concept of movement can pre-exist anything actually capable of moving but movment itself can only take place when
there is something moveable. The movement can be the result of something which is itself unmoving or unmoveable.
The non-moving Universe is 'featureless'. Space and time are epiphenomena of thought.

So, with what formula does thought create space or time? At least for motion we can simply show that delta Space = V * delta Time or delta Time = delta Space / V, since V = delta s/delta t.

Motion, Space and Time are like the three aspects of the monad that cannot be separated. The compass, radius and circle and God's act of creation.

The same can be said of a human or deity if you prefer. I hold that everybody has to adhere to the laws of physics, even the pandemonium. There are no locations or times in our universe more equal than others.

It is certainly true of humans; that is partly what is meant by 'God created man in his image' and other, similar notions from around the world. It is also true for deity, if by deity, you mean man's notion of God or gods. Man also creates God (and gods) in his image. It is not the Laws of physics which everything must obey but the Laws of the Universe. Man-made laws can be cirumvented or even ignored. The laws of
the Universe cannot, Ananke takes care of that.
I will agree that there is no time or location more equal to another, although I could say that the Earth is the centre of the Universe.

Every point of observation is a center of the universe. That is why the feeling that we are special is so strong.
The laws of the universe or the laws of physics are the same since no location or time is preferred in the universe.

Proteus does not have atoms, he is just a thought. The thoughts of his thoughts are atoms. Proteus is known as a shape-shifter. He could be said to be the personification of the atomic world if you like, or of the malleabilty, interchangeability or plasticity of matter. (Nereus is essentially the same character/concept).

So your "thoughts" are like my "backside" of the universe? I could agree that backside thought exists, but since the backside has no location on the frontside I would'nt know of a way to link it to the frontside except by chance.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
Apologies for the delay in replying.

You wrote:

The intelligence of our mutated ape brains has a pretty small variation, so seen our extremely limited understanding of the physical universe for me it means a giant leap to assume that there is an intelligence that can create our universe from mere thought.

We always knew that flight was possible since birds have been flying since history.

We do not have 'mutated ape brains'. According to Darwin, apes and humans shared a common ancestor, we did not evolve from apes.
'Mutation' is a modern concept which implies some sort of randomness; I will stick with the ancients and say that all is cause and effect. Just because the modern experts can't see the connections does not mean that the connections do no exist. (This is what the Moirae, or Fates, represent. They record or keep track of cause and effect. They do not control ones destiny as such).
The reason why modern experts have an 'extremely limited understanding of the physical universe' is because they are trying to build their knowledge up from details, rather than looking at the whole and seeing the patterns. They make things worse by their obsession with logic which is only one half of the brain. Again, I stick with the ancients who advocated the use of reason which comes from the mind.
Relying on our senses we only ever 'observe' the physical world in our brain.
You say that it is a giant leap to assume that there is an intelligence which can create the physical world from 'mere' thought. Do you not create 'worlds' when you dream? What if you never woke up, which would be the 'real' world. (See Plato's allegory of the Cave, or consider the 'brains in vats' connected to an external stimulator scenario).
You say 'mere' thought yet even modern experts are beginning to realise that thought can have effects upon the physical, e.g. the placebo and nocebo effects.
I should have made it explicit that I was talking about man-made heavier than air flight.

You wrote:

We now that physicality is not an illusion because of our physics experiments. Science is not struggling at the macro or micro scales since the measurements are very real, but our brains are struggling to grasp it. The reason we are chasing shadows is that we fail to see that
there is a reciprocal backside to our universe that is fully real but not directly visible except as fields and other patterns of energy.

Physicality is not an illusion; it is the solidity which is the illusion (maya). Physics experiments only ever take place within the illusion so the results are as illusory as that which they are experimenting upon. No matter what is being measured etc, the results always have to be presented in a way which the limited human senses can grasp. Take, for example, the images from Hubble. Those multi-coloured
images which are supposed to show x-ray, gamma etc - the actual nebula, or whatever, in space looks nothing like that. The images are just analogues, useful perhaps, but not the real thing.
Science is struggling at the micro and the macro and all points in between. It will continue to struggle so long as scientists sit in their little pigeon-holes using half their brain. They are not chasing shadows, they are chasing solid objects. If they chased shadows they would have more success.
With regard to your 'backside' of the Universe, may I suggest changing that to underside or something? 'Backside' generally has a different meaning in English.
The 'fields and other patterns of energy' are the physical world. Or, put another way, every physical object is a pattern of energy within a field, e.g. a tree is one pattern of energy in a field which, to us, looks like a tree; a planet ditto. That which constrains the energy within a field is Mind.
What you call the backside is yin (yang in potential), the physical world is yang (yin in actualisation).

You wrote:

So, with what formula does thought create space or time? At least for motion we can simply show that delta Space = V * delta Time or delta Time = delta Space / V, since V = delta s/delta t.

Why does thought (Mind) need formula/equations? Only certain kinds of
modern humans need these. I know I don't.

And:

Motion, Space and Time are like the three aspects of the monad that cannot be separated. The compass, radius and circle and God's act of creation.

Space and time are born of motion. Space (volume) is the environment in which motion takes place; time is the duration of motion. (Accepting your use of the the word 'God') The act of creation is not a single event; it is an ongoing process - everything in Creation creates. William Blake notwithstanding, God doesn't use tools and it is the centre and circumference which are of importance.

You wrote:

Every point of observation is a center of the universe. That is why the feeling that we are special is so strong.
The laws of the universe or the laws of physics are the same since no location or time is preferred in the universe.

As far as humans are concerned, we are the centre of the Universe. The same may well be true for other forms of consciousness out there or other universes, but as far as we are concerned we are. The reason why the feeling is so strong in us is because it is inherent to us; it is true. Modern experts tell us that it is not so, that we are the result of a random singularity having a random Big Bang and life began by chance in some fortuitous collection of chemicals in a fortuitous environment. This life then evolved willy-nilly into humans with scientists at the pinnacle of intelligence.
The laws of the Universe and the laws of physics are not the same thing at all. You have no proof that no location or time is preferred. Science has only a limited understanding of our solar system; it is not possible to extrapolate that meagre understanding out onto the whole
Universe, especially when science has no real understanding of what constitutes the whole Universe. (And I don't care what formulae they use to back up their claims).

You wrote:

So your "thoughts" are like my "backside" of the universe? I could agree that backside thought exists, but since the backside has no location on the frontside I would'nt know of a way to link it to the frontside except by chance.

Your backside is similar to the Dao and your frontside to The One. They are linked by Mind not by chance. There is no such thing as chance. Chance, random, etc, are just words used by experts to cover up their own ignorance. This way of thinking is one of the problems which derive from trying to reconstruct the whole from the detail. Because there are details missing they have to fudge it by using words such as chance etc. Even if they had every detail they would still not get it because
the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.

[StevenO]

Hi GC,
Apologies for the delay in replying.

We do not have 'mutated ape brains'. According to Darwin, apes and humans shared a common ancestor, we did not evolve from apes.
'Mutation' is a modern concept which implies some sort of randomness; I will stick with the ancients and say that all is cause and effect. Just because the modern experts can't see the connections does not mean that the connections do no exist. (This is what the Moirae, or Fates, represent. They record or keep track of cause and effect. They do not control ones destiny as such).

I hold that 'randomness' is intrinsic to our universe. A few things we learned last century and what the ancients did'nt know is that a fundamental level certain processes are random in nature (radioactivity, cosmic rays, QM to mention a few). Believing that it must all be cause and effect is against physical evidence that brought us beyond Newtonian mechanics and is indeed just a belief.

The reason why modern experts have an 'extremely limited understanding of the physical universe' is because they are trying to build their knowledge up from details, rather than looking at the whole and seeing the patterns. They make things worse by their obsession with logic which is only one half of the brain. Again, I stick with the ancients who advocated the use of reason which comes from the mind.
Relying on our senses we only ever 'observe' the physical world in our brain.

No, that is what physics experiments allow us to do: measure things beyond our sensory and brain capacities. Reason is OK, but as long as it does'nt materialize in falsifiable experiments it is just belief.

You say that it is a giant leap to assume that there is an intelligence which can create the physical world from 'mere' thought. Do you not create 'worlds' when you dream? What if you never woke up, which would be the 'real' world. (See Plato's allegory of the Cave, or consider the 'brains in vats' connected to an external stimulator scenario).
You say 'mere' thought yet even modern experts are beginning to realise that thought can have effects upon the physical, e.g. the placebo and nocebo effects.

We cannot prove that what we dream is real, but we can proof that our physical world is real and what effects of thoughts do really impact our physical world.

You wrote:

We now that physicality is not an illusion because of our physics experiments. Science is not struggling at the macro or micro scales since the measurements are very real, but our brains are struggling to grasp it. The reason we are chasing shadows is that we fail to see that
there is a reciprocal backside to our universe that is fully real but not directly visible except as fields and other patterns of energy.

Physicality is not an illusion; it is the solidity which is the illusion (maya). Physics experiments only ever take place within the illusion so the results are as illusory as that which they are experimenting upon. No matter what is being measured etc, the results always have to be presented in a way which the limited human senses can grasp. Take, for example, the images from Hubble. Those multi-coloured
images which are supposed to show x-ray, gamma etc - the actual nebula, or whatever, in space looks nothing like that. The images are just analogues, useful perhaps, but not the real thing.
Science is struggling at the micro and the macro and all points in between. It will continue to struggle so long as scientists sit in their little pigeon-holes using half their brain. They are not chasing shadows, they are chasing solid objects. If they chased shadows they would have more success.
With regard to your 'backside' of the Universe, may I suggest changing that to underside or something? 'Backside' generally has a different meaning in English.
The 'fields and other patterns of energy' are the physical world. Or, put another way, every physical object is a pattern of energy within a field, e.g. a tree is one pattern of energy in a field which, to us, looks like a tree; a planet ditto. That which constrains the energy within a field is Mind.
What you call the backside is yin (yang in potential), the physical world is yang (yin in actualisation).

I think that physicists are trying very hard to use every brain cell they have, but that it is just hard to prove many things beyond the directly visible. It is much easier to just believe in shadows without proving anything.

You wrote:

So, with what formula does thought create space or time? At least for motion we can simply show that delta Space = V * delta Time or delta Time = delta Space / V, since V = delta s/delta t.

Why does thought (Mind) need formula/equations? Only certain kinds of
modern humans need these. I know I don't.

That's fine as long as others do the real work. Our modern world would not exist without the use of formula's.

And:

Motion, Space and Time are like the three aspects of the monad that cannot be separated. The compass, radius and circle and God's act of creation.

Space and time are born of motion. Space (volume) is the environment in which motion takes place; time is the duration of motion. (Accepting your use of the the word 'God') The act of creation is not a single event; it is an ongoing process - everything in Creation creates. William Blake notwithstanding, God doesn't use tools and it is the centre and circumference which are of importance.

So, why is time not an "environment" in which motion takes place? And why is space not the size of a motion? We can only detect motion if both space and time differ. They cannot be isolated from eachother, just like to ongoing process of "creation", which I think can be better described by "recycling".

The circumference of a circle cannot be created without the radius.

You wrote:

Every point of observation is a center of the universe. That is why the feeling that we are special is so strong.
The laws of the universe or the laws of physics are the same since no location or time is preferred in the universe.

As far as humans are concerned, we are the centre of the Universe. The same may well be true for other forms of consciousness out there or other universes, but as far as we are concerned we are. The reason why the feeling is so strong in us is because it is inherent to us; it is true. Modern experts tell us that it is not so, that we are the result of a random singularity having a random Big Bang and life began by chance in some fortuitous collection of chemicals in a fortuitous environment. This life then evolved willy-nilly into humans with scientists at the pinnacle of intelligence.
The laws of the Universe and the laws of physics are not the same thing at all. You have no proof that no location or time is preferred. Science has only a limited understanding of our solar system; it is not possible to extrapolate that meagre understanding out onto the whole
Universe, especially when science has no real understanding of what constitutes the whole Universe. (And I don't care what formulae they use to back up their claims).

The laws of physics for me are describing the laws of the universe. There is proof in physics that no location or time is preferred since the laws are the same in all reference frames. There is no proof for a BB. It is just a nice study subject.
Evolution does not imply willy-nilly and our limited understanding is all we can prove. Off course we are free to believe anything.
I think the Reciprocal System Theory of Dewey Larson provides a pretty good physical basis for the understanding of the whole universe including more complex topics of life and metaphysics, but I have'nt advanced that far yet in the theory. Still trying to grasp the pure mechanical parts.

You wrote:

So your "thoughts" are like my "backside" of the universe? I could agree that backside thought exists, but since the backside has no location on the frontside I would'nt know of a way to link it to the frontside except by chance.

Your backside is similar to the Dao and your frontside to The One. They are linked by Mind not by chance. There is no such thing as chance. Chance, random, etc, are just words used by experts to cover up their own ignorance. This way of thinking is one of the problems which derive from trying to reconstruct the whole from the detail. Because there are details missing they have to fudge it by using words such as chance etc. Even if they had every detail they would still not get it because
the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.

Chance and "randomness" are an intrinsic part of our universe. Life would'nt exist without it.