Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces

[David]

In fact, Michael stated in the Ethereal Mechanics chat room yesterday that his ether theory supposes that the ether etc is organized or managed by psychic means.

Maybe Michael should use his “psychic” skills to come up with a mathematical description of his theory. Because without the mathematics, his tarot-card aether theory is dead on arrival.

[ranmacar]

Solar, thanks for such informative post,. As my math teacher used to say, the old Greeks did indeed invent everything.

In order to get down to basics, why do we not discuss consciousness?

That is where I try to draw the line - if there is consciousness, and not just emergent illusions from the neuron chaos, it has to originate from below the Aether. In order to function as a communication channel for consciousness, it should be strictly deterministic, mechanic, but influenced by the non physical. I might be inclined to account some non local phenomenona to direct consciousness interaction, but that's akin to cheating, bypassing the protocol. Resonances will hopefully explain them away.
This setup, limited, communicating conscious particles, makes 'evolution' possible from particles upwards to society and Internet.

[Michael Anteski]

In fact, Michael stated in the Ethereal Mechanics chat room yesterday that his ether theory supposes that the ether etc is organized or managed by psychic means.

Maybe Michael should use his “psychic” skills to come up with a mathematical description of his theory. Because without the mathematics, his tarot-card aether theory is dead on arrival.

David,

Lloyd gave a capsule account of my concepts of the role "psychism" plays in cosmic forces. -My model of First cause as given when I opened this Thread, is that a universal aether appeared via random processes from original Space. Once an energic aether existed, it served as a matrix for subsequent sapient Entity(s) to go from there to optimize existential conditions in the cosmos. For example, a chaotic system like a quasar might appear, requiring psychically-directed aetheric forces to better balance the forces in that region of space.

I suppose one can stay with the idea that our present (quantum eartrhbound) setting will someday produce complete understanding of cosmic-scale forces, but I don't believe so.

[JHL]

Maybe Michael should use his “psychic” skills to come up with a mathematical description of his theory. Because without the mathematics, his tarot-card aether theory is dead on arrival.

I look forward with great interest to the day when science has explained Mind, Purpose, and Meaning, they having been rightly stripped from philosophy, that tawdry little poseur.

Failing that, I still relish the notion of an equation to provide motivation to whatever basest-level particle or state powers the smallest quantum entities, they being what powers the universe and cosmos.

Like the way the Higgs Boson turned out to be the God Particle that explained Everything. Call it the maths of the Ultimate Turtle, a veritable Rigveda samhita laboratory as it were, with beakers and Bunsens and stuff.

Either way, when neither occur, I resolve to remain kindly to the materialist physicists diligently working on these problems.

[Zyxzevn]

I am working on the interaction between consciousness and matter on some other site.
But instead of consciousness, which is very subjective, I look at Chi.
http://www.reddit.com/r/paradigmchange

I see Chi as life energy that comes from every living being, including earth and sun.
It can be observed by anyone, but might require some training.
But Chi is a life-energy substance that flows many ways, and is multidimensional.
It does not really follow gravity rules, and it can even predict future movements.
That makes me believe that we need something different from Chi or consciousness to
model an ether.

Chi does also have a frozen form. This form does behave like matter. And somehow it appears
to me that all matter may have originated from frozen Chi.
Frozen chi carries the potential to become a form, which is a bit similar to the
collapse of the quantum wave function.

[Lloyd]

I am working on the interaction between consciousness and matter on some other site.
But instead of consciousness, which is very subjective, I look at Chi.
http://www.reddit.com/r/paradigmchange

Consciousness is Not subjective. It's the basis of all theories. It consists of perceptions, thoughts and emotions. The subconscious is connected to consciousness and consists of memory, desire, will and reason. Perceptions are the five senses and visual perception is used most for scientific thinking. Perceptions are poorly copied to memories. Memories are taken by Desire and Will to the Thinking location. All thoughts are taken from memories of perceptions, emotions and thoughts. Desire and Will rearrange thoughts constantly in attempts to attain greater understanding of reality. It's possible that reality is consciousness only. There is obviously more than one conscious self and it's likely that what appear to be other conscious beings are so.

Theories about aether, matter, energy etc reside within our memories, which we access in our thinking centers. So theories consist of memories. But memories are poor copies of former consciousness, so we rely more on immediate perceptions, I think, to constantly update and reinforce our memories. Perceptions capture small increments of time, maybe a second or so for each moment of memory. So we have direct perception of time, but memories seem to be our primary source for knowing/detecting time.

To be continued, maybe.

[Zyxzevn]

Consciousness is Not subjective.

IMO, it is very subjective, and one can be influenced by all kinds of factors.
Many of them are non-physical.
Because consciousness is very subjective, we have all different believe systems,
like different things and make different choices.

[Lloyd]

If consciousness is subjective, then everything known is subjective, because everything is known only within consciousness. Knowing and knowledge are consciousness. Do you consider your mind to be theoretical? Do you consider your perceptions, thoughts and emotions and subconscious to be theoretical? They are what all discussion of reality is based on.

Saying consciousness is subjective is like saying a video or a picture is subjective. You're not starting from basic principles if you assume that the images in our consciousness are caused by physical matter. That's an assumption, not a known fact. Logic suggests that physical reality is something like what physicists imagine, but it's not the least bit certain. It's purely theoretical and it may be unprovable, or it may be that physical reality consists of outer consciousness, beyond ourselves.

Observation is perception, which is consciousness. If we take video images of a brain being examined, the images are only known within the minds of observers. The mind is consciousness. All parts of the body are only known within our perceptions and other aspects of our consciousness, our minds.

The known universe exists only within our minds. If there is a universe outside our minds, it's an as yet unknown entity. And it may be unknowable to us, or it may not exist at all. The universe, as I already said, may consist only of consciousness.

We know there are 3 kinds of consciousness and 4 kinds of subconscious and possibly a superconsciousness.

Those are the basics.

Length, time, mass, temperature and charge may all be forms of motion and motion exists within consciousness. Logic and desire seem to be aspects of a superconsciousness. The known universe may also be another aspect of such a superconsciousness. By examining our own perceptions, we may be able to make good guesses about the aether and matter in the outer consciousness or superconsciousness.

[StefanR]

A certain kind of ether - an ether acting via simple vibrational resonance, and mediated by elemental ether units that are contiguous - can answer the basic questions about cosmic forces that are presently unanswered by quantum mechanics and general relativity.

I have posted a Thread giving a model of how such an ether could have arisen. It is based on the concept of an "original" Space, prior to the first appearance of forces, a Space that differed from our present space. The concept is that of a self-compatible Space comprising elemental, contiguous, spatial points that were in perfectly-symmetrical oscillation with each other. Then, a point-pair underwent oscillational fatigue and combined in "Yin and Yang" fashion, which broke the symmetry. This "disturbance" in the perfect symmetry then was propagated throughout all of space, producing an energic ether consisting of contiguous, vibratory (as derived from the oscillatory), identical, elemental units, which are able to resonate interactively.

The first part, where you gave your interpretation of how I picture Original Space, requires clarification as to what I meant. -In my model, there have been two types of Space: (1) Original Space, which existed in the very beginning, before there were any cosmic forces. This Space consisted of compatible, contiguous, elemental, spatial points which oscillated in perfect symmetry with each other. The Aether had not appeared yet. -(2)The second type of Space would be our present Space, where cosmic forces exist. Our present space certainly differs from Original Space. -Of course, there can't be any way to test original Space, which no longer exists.

The oscillations of spatial points led to fatigue of a pair of adjacent points of space, which fell toward each other, as in the Yin and Yang depiction. This point-pair was still perfectly in symmetry with all the other spatial points, but then, this new point-pair had to re-equilibrate with the the original oscillatory setting, which produced an interaction between unlike points of space, which is when the first real "disturbance" of the perfect symmetry of space occurred. Once a single disturbance of perfect symmetry occurred, it would have been propagated throughout all of space, which naturally would have produced a new kind of space, a space with non-symmetrical elemental units everywhere. -Non symmetry meant directionality, which meant that there were now directional forces in space.

Now, there existed the Aether, which, in the main, consists of identical, contiguous, elemental, units which are able to resonate with each other. -I used the word "nodes" as a simplified way to conceptualize how, when the aether units vibrate (directionally or energically, as contrasted with non-directional oscillations), they can resonate with each other. These resonances are not fixed, but rather are loose enough that they can result in formation of larger "particle capacities" like photons and atoms, and back again, to smaller units of the aether.

Dear Michael,

In the opening posts you mention the spatial-points or points of space, are these the same as the elemental units of your Aether? And if both these are points, how do you say they are contiguous?

[Michael Anteski]

StefanR,

If my usage of the word "points" of original space appears to disagree with the related idea of these spatial references being able to oscillate with respect to one another, in the proposed first-causal setting, I can suggest another way to think about it. You can think of original space's self-compatibility as a "shimmering." Then, a pair of adjacent loci within this original-space underwent fatigue relative to the symmetrical universal reciprocity, and combined in Yin and Yang fashion. Then, inasmuch as reversibility would have had to be a necessary feature of any such process, the joined pair had to undergo re-equilibration with the original setting, which meant an intercation between unlike loci of space, which broke the perfect symmetry of space. Then this single "disturbance" would have propagated uniformly throughout all of space, producing a directional, energic, aether, composed of uniform energic units.

[Zyxzevn]

Saying consciousness is subjective is like saying a video or a picture is subjective.

If you let two persons see the same video, they will see 2 different things.

But anyway, it seems you are talking about a different consciousness than I do.
I am talking about the consciousness that we experience on personal level.
You seem to talk about a universal consciousness.

We know there are 3 kinds of consciousness and 4 kinds of subconscious and possibly a superconsciousness.

I think there are even 1000s, even more "superconsciousness" variations.

Could be the reason why there are so many religions and believe systems.

Logic and desire seem to be aspects of a superconsciousness. The known universe may also be another aspect of such a superconsciousness.

Here we partially agree. There are many different superconsciousnesses (try to say that uploud )
that we experience in this world.

So when you say that consciousness is that what created the world,
I assume that you are talking about some kind of superconsciousnes.
(I know it was not me )

So you are talking about some consciousness that is behind everything in the material world.
Is that related to devas, naturespirits, etc ?
Or do you mean a creator-consciousness like Yahweh/ Buddha / Brahma?

[Michael Anteski]

This is an addendum to my above post answering StefanR:

Stefan, I failed to include a theoretic point in my last post regarding your question as to how "points of original space" could have interactively oscillated, and led to oscillational fatigue of a pair of adjacent "points."

In the Post, I suggested a different way of conceptualizing this, substituting "loci" for the word "points." What I failed to include in my discussion was a rationale for the size of such units (and, by extension to the rise of an energic aether from an oscillationally-fatigued pair) was how one may correlate this oscillational process with the size-nature of the aether units,whether "point-like" or "loci-like."

As the pre-aether space-units oscillated, their effective reciprocal-oscillational distance-range would not have been infinite, which would have meant that the units themselves would have been finite. -Vanishingly small, but finite.

[StefanR]

StefanR,

If my usage of the word "points" of original space appears to disagree with the related idea of these spatial references being able to oscillate with respect to one another, in the proposed first-causal setting, I can suggest another way to think about it. You can think of original space's self-compatibility as a "shimmering." Then, a pair of adjacent loci within this original-space underwent fatigue relative to the symmetrical universal reciprocity, and combined in Yin and Yang fashion. Then, inasmuch as reversibility would have had to be a necessary feature of any such process, the joined pair had to undergo re-equilibration with the original setting, which meant an intercation between unlike loci of space, which broke the perfect symmetry of space. Then this single "disturbance" would have propagated uniformly throughout all of space, producing a directional, energic, aether, composed of uniform energic units.

This is an addendum to my above post answering StefanR:

Stefan, I failed to include a theoretic point in my last post regarding your question as to how "points of original space" could have interactively oscillated, and led to oscillational fatigue of a pair of adjacent "points."

In the Post, I suggested a different way of conceptualizing this, substituting "loci" for the word "points." What I failed to include in my discussion was a rationale for the size of such units (and, by extension to the rise of an energic aether from an oscillationally-fatigued pair) was how one may correlate this oscillational process with the size-nature of the aether units,whether "point-like" or "loci-like."

As the pre-aether space-units oscillated, their effective reciprocal-oscillational distance-range would not have been infinite, which would have meant that the units themselves would have been finite. -Vanishingly small, but finite.

Thank you Michael for your answers, still, please help clarify for me:

There are the "point-like/loci-like units of original space" and there are "point-like/ loci-like energic aether units "?
These two units are different from each other?
And the former "space-units" are productive of the latter "aether units"?
Do these "space-units" have an certain extension (size)?
Do these "aether-units" have a certain extension (size)?
Is it because they are both very small, but with extension, that you call them "point-like" or "loci-like"?
Is this size somewhat comparable by analogy with what is called a "planck-lenght"?
You mentioned quite assuredly in the original posts of these units, "space" and "aether", being contiguous, what did you mean with that?
What is the nature of the oscillation that you mention? Is it of motion or magnitude, or something else?
Is the nature of the oscillation different for the "space-units" than for the "aether-untis"?


Apologies if I seem to be repetitive.

[Michael Anteski]

StefanR:

In my aether Model, "aether units" are different from "space units." -One can assume, intuitively, that "space came first." -The Type of space we mean here would be "original" space, space as it existed before the first appearance of forces. Our present space, which contains directional forces, would differ from original space. In my Model, the aether is directional, or energic. -In contrast, the "units of space" that preceded the aether were "oscillatory," or non-directional.

The term "oscillatory" only applies to the units of space that preceded the appearance of aether units. Aether units vibrate. Their vibration was derived from the oscillation of the preceding space units. -"Oscillation" refers to a repetitive motion around a central focus. It means that the focus is repetitively moving and then directionally "compensating" by moving exactly the same in the opposite direction. Thus, oscillation's net effect is non-directional. -The idea of my first-cause model is that this non-directional process transitioned to a directional, or energic, vibrational process. That's when the term "aether" can start to be used.

Stefan, I wouldn't want to compare my model's elemental aether units to Max Planck's concept of "planck length." "Planck length' is a nebulous term in quantum physics that, theoretically, all other distances and lengths can be related to, but no one really knows what the exact "length" is. -So the planck-length concept is similar to the concept of aether units in my model, but any direct comparison would be impossible, since "a planck length" is unknown.

Stefan, I used the term "contiguous" to describe the spatial relationship among elemental aether units in my Model. Elemental aether units are in intimate contact with each other, or "contiguous," in contrast to the relationship between quantum-scale units in quantum mechanics, where the larger quantum-scale units are separated by space vectors, and interact via "spin" processes. Stefan, it would be important to first distinguish between the way quantum mechanics views the concept of "elements" of energy, and the way my "contiguous elemental aether" model views the basic elements of energy. They are two very different kinds of model.

[StefanR]

StefanR:

In my aether Model, "aether units" are different from "space units." -One can assume, intuitively, that "space came first." -The Type of space we mean here would be "original" space, space as it existed before the first appearance of forces. Our present space, which contains directional forces, would differ from original space. In my Model, the aether is directional, or energic. -In contrast, the "units of space" that preceded the aether were "oscillatory," or non-directional.

Does this mean that forces only came into being after this initial break in symmetry in this original space?
How do the space-units oscillate without forces?
What do you exactly mean by energic, as you seem to equate in a way with directionality?

The term "oscillatory" only applies to the units of space that preceded the appearance of aether units. Aether units vibrate. Their vibration was derived from the oscillation of the preceding space units. -"Oscillation" refers to a repetitive motion around a central focus. It means that the focus is repetitively moving and then directionally "compensating" by moving exactly the same in the opposite direction. Thus, oscillation's net effect is non-directional. -The idea of my first-cause model is that this non-directional process transitioned to a directional, or energic, vibrational process. That's when the term "aether" can start to be used.

I seem to have trouble distinguishing between the oscillation about a certain centre, moving in one way and back in the opposite direction, as you state above, and vibration.
How do you define vibration then?
You say oscillation is non-directional, but still there is a motion forth and back. Doesn't that describe direction?
And if those primary space units move, in what or through what exactly do they move?
If they move oscillatory, does this have a time component or particular fequency?

Stefan, I wouldn't want to compare my model's elemental aether units to Max Planck's concept of "planck length." "Planck length' is a nebulous term in quantum physics that, theoretically, all other distances and lengths can be related to, but no one really knows what the exact "length" is. -So the planck-length concept is similar to the concept of aether units in my model, but any direct comparison would be impossible, since "a planck length" is unknown.

If the planck-lenght is unknown, is the size of an aether-unit known?
Are aether-units composed of space-units, or are aether-units space-units but with directionality?

Stefan, I used the term "contiguous" to describe the spatial relationship among elemental aether units in my Model. Elemental aether units are in intimate contact with each other, or "contiguous," in contrast to the relationship between quantum-scale units in quantum mechanics, where the larger quantum-scale units are separated by space vectors, and interact via "spin" processes. Stefan, it would be important to first distinguish between the way quantum mechanics views the concept of "elements" of energy, and the way my "contiguous elemental aether" model views the basic elements of energy. They are two very different kinds of model.

If I have to imagine (in a crude way) aether-units with a certain extent being in contact with each other, would a big bowl with marbles be fitting?
If the units are contiguous on all sides with other units, where is the room to vibrate with motion?
Could you elaborate on that distinguishment between those different concepts of "elements of energy"?