Consciousness and ether theory

[Michael MD]

I am an ether theorist who believes that our present reliance on quantum mechanics and relativity ("quantum empiricism"), for understanding cosmic phenomena and phenomena occurring in the "natural" world, is the wrong approach, and has been leading to confusion in the latter branches of physics.

I propose that natural forces arose early in the formation of the universe, and to properly understand such forces, we would need to adopt a rationale based on "cosmic origin" (not, as presently, applying our empirical observations of phenomena in our earthly environs.) -I have developed a theoretic model for how cosmic forces originated from an Original Space (space as it existed prior to the first appearance of forces.) Original space, therefore, would have been different from our present space. I submit that the only way to account for our present world of atomically-structured bodies (and the forces in space and the natural world, including the human being) would have to begin by thinking of how original space consisted of point-localities that oscillated symmetrically with each other, and that it underwent a change which led to our world of similarly structured, unit-based, forces everywhere.

The way this could have occurred would be that as original space's oscillating point localities oscillated, a pair of adjacent "points" underwent oscillational fatigue, so that they fell toward each other in "Yin and Yang" fashion. (Oscillational fatigue occurs in metals, but since metallic oscillational fatigue is a quantum process, it can't be definitively correlated with oscillational fatigue in original space.) This paired-up unit would have represented a disturbance of the hitherto perfect symmetry of space, which then would have been propagated throughout all of space, producing a universal matrix of identical etheric energy units. -This would represent a suitable underlying matrix for the subsequent appearance of uniform orderly cosmic systems, and for buildups of larger energy systems, such as quantum energy systems. -The way the underlying etheric energy would work would be via vibrational resonance ("vibrational" as derived from the oscillational), in which elemental etheric units resonate with each other by forming loose connections (not "fixed" connections). A way to conceptualize this would be by analogizing the vibrating "arms" to "nodes" that connect with each other. - Vibrating elemental ether energy units would resonate perfectly linearly, from unit-to-elemental unit.

As larger scale energy systems later appeared, such as quantum energies, these larger energy units developed other energic behaviors (in addition to the vibrational mechanism of the elemental ether units they are built up of) - such as spin, vectors, perhaps non-linearity, and so on.

One confusing physics phenomenon that finds a more rational explanation with this model would be the phenomenon physics now calls "quantum entanglement." -With the above ether model, a quantum-scale unit that is separated from a closely-related other quantum unit, and then appears to react synchronously to a change in the other unit, despite their being at distances too great for quantum forces to be acting (notwithstanding the "entanglement" hypothesis), actually is resonating with the other quantum unit vibrationally, via the elemental etheric units they both are composed of, through the underlying universal ether matrix.

The above ether model also can lead to a more rational view of consciousness. -The idea here would be that in cognitive entities such as humans, their brain's electrical energy is basically transmitted via elemental etheric vibrational processes. -The energy patterns we observe with our earthbound quantum instruments, such as brain waves, "electronic" forces, and so on, are merely "incidental" manifestations at the larger quantum level that are "spin-offs" superimposed on the true mental forces, which are transmitted via linear elemental etheric impulses. -This concept leads to a new model for a number of metaphysical themes that are currently unexplained, such as psychic phenomena, spirituality, and others. -The idea here is that one's brain activity resonates, etherically and "aurically," beyond the body, into a surrounding macrocosm of ultimately-etheric electromagnetic forces, and the latter can transmit the energy patterns emanating from one cognitive entity to another one. -"Consciousnes" would represent an entity's state of etheric energization, in which a cognitive entity maintains his own unique self-resonating etheric energy field. -Surrounding macrocosmic magnetic forces can help maintain such microcosmic cognitive fields by also resonating with it, perhaps via piezo mechanisms and the like. -The basic idea is that of the uniformity and universality of an underlying elemental etheric energy matrix, with all other bodies and fields in resonance with it.
"

[Greylorn Ell]

Excessively complicated.

Define your "space" and its oscillating "points."

Explain the force exerted by the space that gets the "points" to oscillate.

Then explain the counterforce exerted by the points.

How many "points" do you posit? How might the structure they comprise have come into being?

How do you define the properties of the aether?

Greylorn

[Michael MD]

Greylorn,

Your criticism that the model as I presented it is too complicated may be right, in a way. -The sequence of the steps in a complete "Ether Origins" model may be more lengthy, but could make my model clearer.

For an energic ether to have developed from pure original space, I submit, there had to be an initial mechanism in which oscillations of point localities transitioned to some sort of unit-based energic matrix. This matrix then would have been subject to a number of subsequent modifications, or "steps," to have led to our present world, which, of course, now is based on more or less uniform and orderly energic and atomic systems.

The concept of "Yin and Yang" is as an oscillationally-fatigued point-pair that acted as the stimulus for "organizing" a post-pure-space oscillational world, of un-organized energy, into a somewhat-more-systematic world of energy processes, in which such forces as transient magnetism could act as a key catalyst, inducing formations of local areas having some degree of organization - that, then, could have transitioned into a world, of both oscillation and transient magnetism, containing a localized area of etheric energy conducive to stimulating the first appearance of cognitiveness. -The first such cognitive Entity, being etheric in nature, could have been able to mentally manipulate the surrounding magnetic energy, purposefully, to optimize it for existential purposes.

This then could have led to our present world via cognitive and purposeful manipulation of ambient etheric forces. -In the case of our present universe, the first step would have been to mentally project elemental etheric units, judiciously, such as to form a universe. The first step would have projected the smallest (and fastest) units, the elemental electronic-photonic units, outwardly, in a designed, creational, way. -This could have neatly produced propagative-replicative processes in the ether - etheric linear processes that, in turn, produced larger energic units. -Neutrons and protons, being larger than electrons and photons, would have been slower, and taken their place inside atomic nuclei. -Light and electronic phenomena would have continued being transmitted via the initial vibrational/resonational form of energy. Quantum-order electrons and photons would represent "incidental" (from an energy theory standpoint) "spin-off" energy units that are produced as elemental electronic and photonic ether units traverse space.

[Michael MD]

In the above context, added food for thought would lie in the area of ultra-microscopic study of biological systems. The more minuscule the scales that these studies reach, the more complex the systems become, until, at the "nano" scale, the complexity of the subcellular organelle-structurings seems beyond imagining as to how they could have arisen.

I would submit that the only way these findings are explainable would be if they originated in intense energic conditions, involving etheric forces - so finely tuned that such complexity would have been possible. -My last Post suggests that such highly-energized etheric local areas could have existed in the early cosmos. Cognition and consciousness could have had a similar origin.

[Greylorn Ell]

In the above context, added food for thought would lie in the area of ultra-microscopic study of biological systems. The more minuscule the scales that these studies reach, the more complex the systems become, until, at the "nano" scale, the complexity of the subcellular organelle-structurings seems beyond imagining as to how they could have arisen.

I would submit that the only way these findings are explainable would be if they originated in intense energic conditions, involving etheric forces - so finely tuned that such complexity would have been possible. -My last Post suggests that such highly-energized etheric local areas could have existed in the early cosmos. Cognition and consciousness could have had a similar origin.

Like everyone else you hypothesize "energetic" initial conditions, which by their nature imply structure and complexity. In other words, you want low-entropy initial states, just like Big Bang cosmologists and religionists. Consider paying heed to Penrose's distaste for such initial conditions.

Otherwise anything you theorize requires an answer to the "where did it come from," or "what created it?" questions and places your ideas in the same camps as the functionally identical Big Bang and almighty God theorists.

I'm certain that cognition and consciousness had identical and effectively simultaneous origins, and preceded the engineering of the structural phase of the universe. I also am of the opinion that the initial state of the universe's components was absolute Entropy One.

Greylorn

[attofishpi]

I'm certain that cognition and consciousness had identical and effectively simultaneous origins, and preceded the engineering of the structural phase of the universe. I also am of the opinion that the initial state of the universe's components was absolute Entropy One.

Greylorn

Hi Greylorn

Sorry to sound ignorant, but what do you mean by Entropy One? Are you implying the initial state of the universe where 'habital' energy\structure is available to man (if he was around) is at its maximum?

[Michael MD]

Greylorn,

To critique my "origins/ether" model with the usual categorical type of criteria that the mainstream uses for alternative-theoretic models. -I submit this is not treating it fairly. -You have lumped my model together with those of religionists and other traditional "opponents" of the consensus overview. -I submit that when my model injects the concept of non-randomness and tries to draw innovative scientific correlations, it is in effect covering new ground. You could try thinking my model over from that vantage point, raise specific issues in my model, and maybe then we could have a meaningful debate.

[Greylorn Ell]

I'm certain that cognition and consciousness had identical and effectively simultaneous origins, and preceded the engineering of the structural phase of the universe. I also am of the opinion that the initial state of the universe's components was absolute Entropy One.

Greylorn

Hi Greylorn

Sorry to sound ignorant, but what do you mean by Entropy One? Are you implying the initial state of the universe where 'habital' energy\structure is available to man (if he was around) is at its maximum?

Hi Atto!

Ignorance is a common state of even the best human minds. Unlike stupidity, ignorance is correctable, and is only a problem when someone who is ignorant about something thinks he knows all about it. So thanks for your question. I'll start with the fundamentals in hopes that doing so will help others understand this somewhat arcane physics topic.

Entropy is a Greek word meaning "disorder" that was coined during the early days of thermodynamics to define the relationship between the first and second principles (laws) of thermodynamics:

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form;
2) The Entropy of a closed physical system cannot be decreased.

1) Energy can produce a force that does something.
2) Entropy determines if that force will be produced.

Personally I think that "entropy/disorder" is a poor choice of wording, and prefer "lethargy." The greater the lethargy of a system, the less it is likely to do anything.

Entropy is always a function of a particular physical system, so it can only be measured relative to that system. The measurement scale is from 0 to 1, just like probabilities.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Place a simple battery-powered clock with a fresh battery into a completely sealed box that allows nothing in or out, no heat, no light. This creates a closed system. There is electrochemical energy in the battery and thermal energy in the air within the box and the clock's frame and mechanisms. The system is at Entropy zero. The clock is ready to tick, not lethargic.

Although we cannot see into the box we know what will happen. The clock will tick away until the battery runs down, which might take a year. Heat energy from the battery and clock mechanism will be transferred into the air within the box. Because the system is closed, this energy cannot escape. When the clock stops ticking, the air in the box will be a little bit warmer than at the start of the experiment.

No energy is lost. However the entropy of the system is now "one," a state of maximum lethargy. The thermal energy of the air will never recharge the battery and the clock will not tick.

Now let's put this in the context of my statement, "...the initial state of the universe's components was absolute Entropy One. "

We know that in the 5% of the universe we live and work with, everything is a form of energy, including matter. It seems fair enough to assume that the dark matter comprising 20% of the universe is also a form of energy. The remaining 75% is dark energy. So I'm naturally assuming that the whole shebang is energy.

To make my "initial state" notion a little more precise, I propose that the initial state of our universe was a space containing entirely dark energy at a temperature of absolute zero, entropic state absolute one. That defines a space which cannot do anything, within which our concepts of space and time are meaningless and undefinable, and within which nothing whatsoever will happen. Absolute maximum lethargy.

Let me know if that's not clear enough. I love honest questions.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn,

To critique my "origins/ether" model with the usual categorical type of criteria that the mainstream uses for alternative-theoretic models. -I submit this is not treating it fairly. -You have lumped my model together with those of religionists and other traditional "opponents" of the consensus overview. -I submit that when my model injects the concept of non-randomness and tries to draw innovative scientific correlations, it is in effect covering new ground. You could try thinking my model over from that vantage point, raise specific issues in my model, and maybe then we could have a meaningful debate.

Michael,

Sorry to disappoint, but the only thing I could make sense of from your hand-waving presentation was the fact that you're proposing another Entropy 0 system. I realize that in any theory about the beginnings there will be some hand-waving kinds of arguments, but these belong at the highest level of theory, not at the detail level, as you utilize them.

Imagine if Einstein wrote pages of yada-yada's and finished with E=mcc? Who'd give a shit? So far, all you have is the yada's, with a vague promise of useful conclusions. To obtain my interest you must provide detailed properties of the systems you propose. Perhaps this sounds snobbish, but half-thought-out and ill-explained metaphysical schemes are a dime a thousand, and impossible to fully describe on any blog. You'll need to write a book, like I did.

Greylorn

[Michael MD]

Greylorn,

If you fully thought through my ether model, you'd have realized that entropy is not a key consideration there.

Entropy is basically a concept in thermodynamics, where a system's heat is stable in an isolated setting, but when in contact with other systems, thermal processes produce changes in the stability of the system, often referred to as "decreasing the order of the system," but which basically reflect changes across different systems due to thermodynamic processes.

In my ether model, the key actor is a universal underlying ether energy-matrix, and the resonance between vibrating elemental ether energic units in this matrix. -Such an energic process would be perfectly linear, with energic impulses transmitted in a linear way from elemental unit-to-elemental ether-unit. (The way my Model views thermodynamic systems is (1) as a potentially non-linear property of quantum scale energic systems - which basically involve spin/vector interactions between quantum energic units, or (2) interactive motion-related heat-related properties of molecules, or (3) non-linear processes involving nuclear units ("thermonuclear'). My model views heat as non linearity and views elemental etheric forces as purely linear, and "cool."

So you shouldn't bring in thermodynamic theory and your theory of entropy, in critiquing my ether model.

Other theorists have also cited empirical earth-based quantum-mediated observations to criticize my ether model, as you have done in bringing in "entropy" as a key criterion. -But my ether model is based on a concept of how the ether could have originated in space. Earth-based quantum-forces observations cannot "disprove" this kind of model.

[attofishpi]

I'm certain that cognition and consciousness had identical and effectively simultaneous origins, and preceded the engineering of the structural phase of the universe. I also am of the opinion that the initial state of the universe's components was absolute Entropy One.

Greylorn

Hi Greylorn

Sorry to sound ignorant, but what do you mean by Entropy One? Are you implying the initial state of the universe where 'habital' energy\structure is available to man (if he was around) is at its maximum?

Hi Atto!

Ignorance is a common state of even the best human minds. Unlike stupidity, ignorance is correctable, and is only a problem when someone who is ignorant about something thinks he knows all about it. So thanks for your question. I'll start with the fundamentals in hopes that doing so will help others understand this somewhat arcane physics topic.

Entropy is a Greek word meaning "disorder" that was coined during the early days of thermodynamics to define the relationship between the first and second principles (laws) of thermodynamics:

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form;
2) The Entropy of a closed physical system cannot be decreased.

1) Energy can produce a force that does something.
2) Entropy determines if that force will be produced.

Personally I think that "entropy/disorder" is a poor choice of wording, and prefer "lethargy." The greater the lethargy of a system, the less it is likely to do anything.

Entropy is always a function of a particular physical system, so it can only be measured relative to that system. The measurement scale is from 0 to 1, just like probabilities.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Place a simple battery-powered clock with a fresh battery into a completely sealed box that allows nothing in or out, no heat, no light. This creates a closed system. There is electrochemical energy in the battery and thermal energy in the air within the box and the clock's frame and mechanisms. The system is at Entropy zero. The clock is ready to tick, not lethargic.

Although we cannot see into the box we know what will happen. The clock will tick away until the battery runs down, which might take a year. Heat energy from the battery and clock mechanism will be transferred into the air within the box. Because the system is closed, this energy cannot escape. When the clock stops ticking, the air in the box will be a little bit warmer than at the start of the experiment.

No energy is lost. However the entropy of the system is now "one," a state of maximum lethargy. The thermal energy of the air will never recharge the battery and the clock will not tick.

Now let's put this in the context of my statement, "...the initial state of the universe's components was absolute Entropy One. "

We know that in the 5% of the universe we live and work with, everything is a form of energy, including matter. It seems fair enough to assume that the dark matter comprising 20% of the universe is also a form of energy. The remaining 75% is dark energy. So I'm naturally assuming that the whole shebang is energy.

To make my "initial state" notion a little more precise, I propose that the initial state of our universe was a space containing entirely dark energy at a temperature of absolute zero, entropic state absolute one. That defines a space which cannot do anything, within which our concepts of space and time are meaningless and undefinable, and within which nothing whatsoever will happen. Absolute maximum lethargy.

Let me know if that's not clear enough. I love honest questions.

Greylorn

Thanks Greylorn for your detailed explanation, it makes much more sense. I had it the wrong way around.

[HexHammer]

("quantum empiricism")

..uhmm ..seems you like to say random fancy things.
Have you ever been diagnosed with mental illness?

[Michael MD]

Hex Hammer:

My use of the phrase "quantum empiricism" was used in the context of my ether-theory Model, which claims that Science is presently relying only on "empirical" data, which means that we are relying exclusively on the observations we make in our earthbound environment, in forming theories about energy systems everywhere, including those in space and the cosmos, and also theories about forces involved in natural systems, such as biological systems having properties like consciousness, which (I submit) would have originated outside earth.

In other words, earth, where we do our scientific observations, is a realm where quantum forces are all we perceive. But, I would submit, convincing evidence exists that we are missing the key etheric forces that would clarify those kinds of evidence (puzzling findings in biology, in the cosmos, and so on.)

[HexHammer]

Hex Hammer:

My use of the phrase "quantum empiricism" was used in the context of my ether-theory Model, which claims that Science is presently relying only on "empirical" data, which means that we are relying exclusively on the observations we make in our earthbound environment, in forming theories about energy systems everywhere, including those in space and the cosmos, and also theories about forces involved in natural systems, such as biological systems having properties like consciousness, which (I submit) would have originated outside earth.

In other words, earth, where we do our scientific observations, is a realm where quantum forces are all we perceive. But, I would submit, convincing evidence exists that we are missing the key etheric forces that would clarify those kinds of evidence (puzzling findings in biology, in the cosmos, and so on.)

This is complete madness babble and raving, plz shut up and fuck off to some other place, and stop polluting this site with your stupidity.

[Michael MD]

In case there are any posters still interested in discussing any part of my Model, maybe we can sidestep HexHammer. I would be open to meaningful debate about any of it.