The Astral Pulse

More than a year ago, I read "Revolution in Common Sense," (RCS) a paper about the spiritual implications of quantum mechanics (QM). I found it an enjoyable read. I especially liked its integral approach of combining different theories into one proposal. It was like a nice bowl of candy. Unfortunately, after I finished reading (and rereading) the essay, I was unable to apply it to my life, especially over the long term. I therefore submit this criticism not as a skeptic, but as an experimenter who has found these claims delusive in practice, and possibly intellectually dishonest.

QuoteOur common sense is not a reliable basis for correct judgments.

This is true. Our common sense has been overturned in the past. As the article mentions, it was once common sense that the Earth was the center of the solar system. In a more concrete example, it also used to be common sense that heavier objects fell to the Earth faster than lighter objects. Even Aristotle regarded these two statements as true because they were common sense. It took the "uncommon sense" of the scientific method to experiment and measure the veracity of these claims.

One has the feeling that, after reading this introductory sentence, this essay will inform the reader about a tried and tested truth of science that will challenge his or her own personal assumptions about the universe.

QuoteThere is no common sense on which all people agree.

And then you read something like that. "Common sense" by definition requires no specialized knowledge. So, there really is no generalized knowledge on which we all agree? Doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as a common sense?

Instead of overlooking it, let's consider that statement. I don't want to over-analyze it, but this statement primes your mind to more readily accept what is to follow by making you question everything you think you know – including everything you think you know about you. Is this a valid statement? No, it's not.

The most common examples you can think of can be overruled by harsh examination. "The sky is blue," may be common sense for you, but it is not common for people who are colorblind. "Water is wet," is more a more difficult one, but it is possible to have no sense of touch all over, although it usually means you are paralyzed all over and are therefore a vegetable. "Common sense" seems it like it should only be applicable for people who have the capability for sense in the first place, so we can not rightfully include those who are born severely invalid and paralyzed into the population of people who can agree on common sense.

Aside from the often overlooked common sense wisdom of statements like, "water is wet," there is a whole other arena of sense that we all commonly agree on, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, and academic background. That arena is mathematics, and can be as common sense as:

1 + 1 = 2

Naturally, mathematics as a written language is a system of symbology, there are probably no symbols that are common sensically known. However, mathematics as a simple system of quantitative relation is extraordinarily common. What human being does not intuitively know that one apple and one other apple together are more than one apple alone, making two apples? And that one extra apple is more than two, making three apples? If so, then it is doubtful they have the capability of sense, and cannot be included in an example where people are asked to agree on common sense.

This may sound trivial, but it is not - not by any means. The ability to count and measure is the basis for so much understanding. Because of this capability, early humans were able to regulate how much food they needed to eat, and therefore how much seed they needed to sow for the planting season. And, of course, this capability allows us to understand the universe enough to make computers that allow the discourse that we are engaging in right now. And I mention it especially here because mathematics is not considered a topic of spirituality. However, it is intimately entwined with QM. So when you divorce QM from mathematics, you're not left with very much.

RCS contains absolutely no mathematics to speak of. This is not unusual for a work on QM aimed at a general audience. The popular book from Brian Greene, which spawned the NOVA program, "The Elegant Universe," also contains no math. However, it's understood that the theories proposed in "Elegant Universe" have a strong mathematical basis. The strings in string theory have explicit variables in equations that physicists attempt to relate to variables we already know and can measure (the force of gravity, for instance). However, in RCS, it is not apparent at the theory of the "holon" has any measurable basis, or any basis to things which we already know and measure.

To be fair, JoWo states that he is not trying to present a new mathematical theory, but to challenge the interpretations of already existing knowledge.

QuoteWe are not talking about disputing true scientific facts, it is the interpretation of these facts that is up for discussion. Through habitual repetition, interpretations are often accepted as if they were facts, and it is difficult to detect the difference.

Ironic, as JoWo proceeds to repeat (almost as if by habit) his holon interpretation alongside facts, making it difficult to tell the difference.

But before doing that, he first supports it with the sly assumption that there are more than 4 dimensions in our universe. His reasoning is that, before, our common sense view was that the world contained only 3 dimensions. However, after Einstein's discovery of relativity, we supposedly find ourselves in a 4-dimensional universe. According to JoWo, once the step from 3 to 4 is made, it is not unreasonable to make the jump to 5, 100, or 1,000.

QuoteWe have only mentioned 4-D space so far, but once one accepts the idea that reality is not limited to three dimensions, then there is no logical reason to assume that it is limited to four or any other number.

But making the step from 3 to 4 dimensions is not as simple as it sounds. Arguably, no such step needs to be taken. JoWo's words in the above statement are so convoluting that to me they border on dishonesty.

First, let's consider the "common sense" view of time as a dimension. Our common sense tells us that time is a dimension. Even in Aristotle's time, long before Einstein, people made appointments with one another using 4 dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time). "I'll meet you at the top of the stairs of the southern side of Parthenon at sunrise tomorrow." Pretty agreeable stuff. In that sense, it is questionable that any revolution in common sense needed to be made.

Second, let's reconsider the ways Einstein's discoveries challenge our common sense perception of time as a dimension, and the ways  that they don't. According to Einstein's "twin paradox" thought experiment, it's possible to travel into the future by traveling close to the speed of light. Regardless of the common sense fact that we always seem to be traveling towards the future anyways, Einstein shows us we can do it at a faster rate relative to another's frame of reference. This has been demonstrated many times over using satellite equipment – the GPS satellites would not work if they did not correct for this effect. This definitely challenges our common sense. However, Einstein does not challenge our proverbial common sense notion that it's impossible to travel into the past (proverbial because we've "put the past behind us"). Einstein's laws of relativity do not show by any means that it is possible to travel in both directions of time, as we are able to travel in both directions of all of the 3 other spatial dimensions. In this sense, the 4th dimension cannot be categorically grouped with the other 3 as a pure extension of spatial ordinance. However, you can for the purposes of theory still have a mathematical dimension and only go one direction on it, so we group it in a model of 4-D spacetime.

The jump in the understanding of reality as having more than 3 dimensions to 4 dimensions was in the area of applied mathematical models of physics. Not in common sense experience! Because people always incorporated time as a dimension in their life anyways.

This brings me to another problem I have with JoWo's piece, and other pieces from authors who use the word "dimension" in the experiential context. This is severely problematic. We used the concept of "dimension" for mathematical purposes, exclaiming that we have three of them in the material world, along with another one of time that only moves in one direction. We can use the word as a metaphor for other things, but is highly mysterious and poetic to use it in the context of something that cannot be numerically measured.

QuoteAlthough we can not experience M-D environments directly, the great enlightened religious leaders and mystics must have been able to do so (27). For Buddhism and Hinduism, specifically Yoga, the primary goal is to attain an ever more transcendent state of mind, and to perceive directly higher dimensional realities. In contrast, the Western World has pursued the development of rational thought. It allows us to understand the laws that govern reality, without perceiving the reality directly. So we understand for instance that the earth rotates around the sun, although we cannot see this directly. In the same manner it is possible to penetrate M-D reality. We can learn to understand it, though we cannot perceive it directly.

JoWo, your statement that we cannot directly observe the earth rotating around the sun is puzzling, because it is glaringly inaccurate. The Apollo astronauts had a more direct view of the Earth as it rotated around the sun, and we have a distinctly more direct view with the use of cameras from satellites and probes. Your application of that example to higher dimensional realities is extremely dubious.

In the above quote, you endorse the world religions of Buddhism and Hinduism as reliable methods for experiencing reality. I am confused by your use of the word "transcendent," because you define it for your own purposes, incorporating the word "dimension" into its definition. Actually, that's what you make to mean entirely. Transcendence = more dimensions.

QuoteTranscendent: Having more integrated dimensions. Higher order.

Here is the definition from Dictionary.com, so you can see how I might be confused. (I do not intend to mince and parse definitions like a schoolchild, but to try and find some consensus on how we can use the word and in what it means in certain contexts).

Quotetran·scen·dent adj.

1.   Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2.   Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: "fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor" (National Review).
3.   Philosophy.
  a.   Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
  b.   In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4.   Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

As you can see, transcendent can mean many similar things in the same context. It has always seemed to me that transcendence is either movement along the extremes of an already existing dimension (metaphorically, as in dimension of thought or dimension of skill or dimension of beauty etc. - as in definition 2) or a complete surpassing of dimension as a material construct (definitions 1 and 4).

To quickly sum up, I don't think you present much usefulness in grounding spirituality to quantum mechanics and its theories of extra spatial dimensions.

Unless you can use your spiritual powers to help researchers observe a graviton, or something similarly demonstrable, I don't think you have any basis for comparing quantum mechanics and spirituality. In my opinion, I don't think that this is a bad thing, for I think spirituality is probably better off, because quantum mechanics is too "uncertain of itself."

Quote from: TelosMore than a year ago, I read ?Revolution in Common Sense,? (RCS) a paper about the spiritual implications of quantum mechanics (QM). I found it an enjoyable read. I especially liked its integral approach of combining different theories into one proposal. It was like a nice bowl of candy. Unfortunately, after I finished reading (and rereading) the essay, I was unable to apply it to my life, especially over the long term. I therefore submit this criticism not as a skeptic, but as an experimenter who has found these claims delusive in practice, and possibly intellectually dishonest.


<snip>

I've just read this article/essay for the first time, only yesterday.
...and I can honestly say I'm truly amazed - it has changed my life.
It's pieced together all the interesting things I've been reading about all my life.

I think you completely and utterly misunderstood the whole point.  I mean not just a little bit, but completely and utterly.

You are basically a Flatlander.  Yes  - a Flatlander.
You are sitting on a 2D plane and you mind cannot comprehend it. If you didn't get in that article, I'm really disappointed.

You've clearly made your mind up, so there's no point in waffling on.
But instead of nit-picking, and trying to make it all make sense for you; like all scientists you can't see the wood for the trees.


The essay very convincingly just says one simple thing - we do indeed live is a Multi-Dimensional Universe. Even scientists, don't like it, but the maths fits and solves all the problems - even superstring needs 11/12 or more dimensions.
So it's real simple :

We live in a multi-dimension universe, not to accept that because you can't see it, doesn't mean we don't.  Everything points to it, that's the point he is saying, and indeed science backs this up quite nicely now. Without it everything in quantum mechanics doesn't make sense and can never make sense.


So how can you experience it?  Well Astral Projection. You can travel anywhere in the universe you won't experience it.

The only way to truely experience it, is actually enter other dimensions, and you can only do this with your inner self.

So spiritualism is actually completely entwined with Quantum Physics.

The problem is you are still in flat land mode thinking. You want to see, but you'll never see or imagine the 3rd dimension as a flatlander -it's just a concept. You'll never prove it, the evidence will never be there. So you are flatlander who's just said, there is no evidence therefore it's not real, and all this weird stuff, is just weird stuff.

On the other hand, us believers realise it can all be explained if you embrace other dimensions.

You think the world is the centre of the universe because you can't prove that it isn't. Even scientists have no proof of why light behaves as a particle if observed that way, and behaves like waves.  Two different people have nobel prizes illustrating this and they are in complete contradiction to each other.  So, scientists even move on, in light of observations, and no evidence.  You can't even move on like a scientist to the next level. You are still stuck in needed proof, when there never will be any for you.

Even Einstien acknowledged that imagination is more important than knowledge.  Infact I'm baffled that you even believe in Astral Projection, there is certainly no scientific evidence for it.

Quote from: BillionNamesofGodYou've clearly made your mind up, so there's no point in waffling on.

No I haven't. BillionNamesofGod, I'm very sorry. I did not mean to give the impression that I had made up my mind. Other people have had that idea by reading my posts before, and I'm trying to fix that... can you please tell me specifically what made you think that? I am just trying to better understand things.

I'm not confused about the idea of quantum multi-dimensionality as I am confused about what it has to do with spirituality.

QuoteBut instead of nit-picking, and trying to make it all make sense for you; like all scientists you can't see the wood for the trees.

I thought I was nitpicking.

QuoteThe essay very convincingly just says one simple thing - we do indeed live is a Multi-Dimensional Universe.

You don't need an essay to tell you that. Isn't it common sense that we live in a universe with more than one dimension?

QuoteSo how can you experience it?  Well Astral Projection. You can travel anywhere in the universe you won't experience it.

How do you know that Astral Projection has anything to do with quantum mechanics?

I am open to the possibility that there is a connection, but maybe it's presumptuous to say so without demonstrable evidence? If you don't mind me using your words against you - I think you're the one thinking like a Flatlander.

QuoteThe only way to truely experience it, is actually enter other dimensions, and you can only do this with your inner self.

So spiritualism is actually completely entwined with Quantum Physics.

If that's true, then I must be either very dumb, or you must be very smart, because I don't know how you can make that step in reasoning. Where is the bridge? Or is there no bridge? Is it a leap of faith?

QuoteThe problem is you are still in flat land mode thinking. You want to see, but you'll never see or imagine the 3rd dimension as a flatlander -it's just a concept. You'll never prove it, the evidence will never be there. So you are flatlander who's just said, there is no evidence therefore it's not real, and all this weird stuff, is just weird stuff.

On the other hand, us believers realise it can all be explained if you embrace other dimensions.

You think the world is the centre of the universe because you can't prove that it isn't. Even scientists have no proof of why light behaves as a particle if observed that way, and behaves like waves.  Two different people have nobel prizes illustrating this and they are in complete contradiction to each other.  So, scientists even move on, in light of observations, and no evidence.  You can't even move on like a scientist to the next level. You are still stuck in needed proof, when there never will be any for you.

Well, I never asked for proof! I'd be okay with some evidence, particularly of the demonstrable kind.

QuoteEven Einstien acknowledged that imagination is more important than knowledge.

He also said, "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."

QuoteIn fact I'm baffled that you even believe in Astral Projection, there is certainly no scientific evidence for it.

Interesting. Why do you believe in it, if there's no scientific evidence for it? Is it because you feel better accepting things through faith?

"Astral projection" seems like a very broad concept. Like JoWo, I have had some profound mystical experiences. However, unlike JoWo, I haven't concluded that spiritual reality is intimately entwined with QM. In actuality, I think QM limits our understanding of spirituality (like a kind of "poor man's materialism") and I think there are some others who are afraid of admitting it.

There is such social pressure to accept Quantum Metaphysics, which you've just shown. Don't question Quantum Metaphysics or you'll get called a small minded "Flatlander." You said you were disappointed in me thinking like a flatlander, BillionNamesofGod. Well, I'm disappointed in you saying so.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to reply. Although I can't thank you for reading my post... because honestly it doesn't look like you did.  :? But maybe I just did a bad job in writing it.

Also let me say that I mean no ad hominem attack on Joachim Wolf, but just to submit some of my own small, personal criticism to his ideas on how this universe supposedly works.

Quote from: Telos

If that's true, then I must be either very dumb, or you must be very smart, because I don't know how you can make that step in reasoning. Where is the bridge? Or is there no bridge? Is it a leap of faith?

You've hit the nail on the head.  

It is a leap of faith.  It's really as simple as that.  end.

------------------

If you take the leap, open our mind, and once you experience AP, your mind expands and you are fully aware of the true multi-dimensional nature of the universe. The problem is in your case, you are still stuck in Flat Land and not prepared to take the leap of faith without some evidence, which explained above will never exist.  Without it you will experience nothing, but  the dimensions x,y,z, and the forward arrow of time.  So I think that about wraps it up.  You haven't taken the leap in conceptual thinking so the rest of the conversation is a complete waste of my time and your time. You'll never grasp anything anyone says, you need to expand your mind first.  (see below)

;-)

Quote from: Telos
I'm not confused about the idea of quantum multi-dimensionality as I am confused about what it has to do with spirituality.

Again, you want to read the article. You enter "spirtual realms" by entering other dimensions etc...

Quote from: Telos
You don't need an essay to tell you that. Isn't it common sense that we live in a universe with more than one dimension?

Oh really? If you believe that then you've got it, you can see where the rest of the essay comes from, the first step is to say we live is a multi-dimension universe, and every object here, is actually a multi-dimentional object, and keep going, and you end up with the profound insights of the essay.

Quote from: Telos
How do you know that Astral Projection has anything to do with quantum mechanics?

Because when you experience it, you know you are entering a parallel dimension.  To explain all the weird stuff in quantum mechanics you must have multiple dimensions for anything to make sense.

Quote from: Telos
I am open to the possibility that there is a connection, but maybe it's presumptuous to say so without demonstrable evidence? If you don't mind me using your words against you - I think you're the one thinking like a Flatlander.

Sorry, you missed the point again, you won't find any "demonstrable evidence" so don't waste your effort in finding it. The only proof you will find will be in your inner self.  Scientists who study quantum physics / cosmology can't either, but they can take leaps of faith that leads them to the same conclustions as Buddists centuries ago.
Seems like scientists are going the long way about it, so you see the connection with quantum physics and say buddhists? They come up with the same conclusions! They both take leaps of faith. Hence the link.

I strongly suggest you read the book "The Tao of Physics" before you spend any more time thinking about it.

Quote from: Telos
If that's true, then I must be either very dumb, or you must be very smart, because I don't know how you can make that step in reasoning. Where is the bridge? Or is there no bridge? Is it a leap of faith?

(See Above)

Well, you see smart people are actually dumb, yes, the qualifications
is what actually makes you dumb.

I suggest you read the books by edward de bono like "lateral thinking" to develop your skills here.  You'll notice people who make scientific leaps
actually don't rely on their formal "smart" qualifications.

Einstien is a perfect example.  If you really think about it deeply,
all he had was his imagination - no computers or technology, and by being the first person to have the leap of faith to imagine in his mind, travelling along the speed of light what the consequences were.

So the connnection? Everything starts from your inner spiritual self.  You see it?

Quote from: Telos
He also said, "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."

Ah exactly.  Never stop questioning.  That means if you don't have
the evidence, it doesn't mean it's true. He doesn't say you need evidence to believe anything.  He came up with amazing scientific revolutions by his imagination alone.  There was no proof.  Yet everyone else, could not prove or disprove him - there was no evidence.
Now of course, much later, his theories are "proven" correct, but not when they were announced.  This is purely from a leap of faith and his imagination alone, and to question.  He had no evidence, why do you need it before you can believe?

Quote from: Telos
Interesting. Why do you believe in it, if there's no scientific evidence for it? Is it because you feel better accepting things through faith?

Because I've experienced it. I can leave the rest to the forum.

;-)

Quote from: Telos
"Astral projection" seems like a very broad concept. Like JoWo, I have had some profound mystical experiences. However, unlike JoWo, I haven't concluded that spiritual reality is intimately entwined with QM. In actuality, I think QM limits our understanding of spirituality (like a kind of "poor man's materialism") and I think there are some others who are afraid of admitting it.

I really won't have a bad word said against Joachim Wolf like Einstien he's taken a real leap of faith logically and come up with amazing conclusions - just like Einstien.  If you experieced leaving your body, it makes even more sense.  AP is a very clear concept.

I suggest you read Adventures of the body by  William Buhlman - this is by someone like yourself (a skeptic) who started to OBE, and it has a lot of quantum physics in it.

:-)

I'm very sad that you said that.

I have opened my mind. And I have previously taken leaps of faith. But those are not the same thing. In fact, they're just the opposite. Taking a leap of faith means closing your mind to other possibilities.

I have experienced AP. I am so open to the possibilities of existence, I even entertain the notion that I could do AP professionally and win the lottery, or pick stocks, or any number of such things. Before you (closed-mindedly) call that a "flatland endeavor," I'd like to use the money to fund new kinds of art projects that would inspire people to AP, also considering the fact that winning a whole ton of money by itself inspire people to AP, and lead a mass exodus away from gambling. If I became advanced enough in AP, I might broadcast art directly to people's dreams, and help them experience this wider reality.

Is that thinking like a Flatlander?

QuoteWithout it you will experience nothing,

Ignoring the figurative millions of other truly fantastic dream experiences I've had, just a few days ago I found a town where people are supposedly preparing for their new lives. Frank suggested that I was in Monroe focus 25,26, and after some discussion I find that accurate, even though I didn't have specific case evidence to confirm that someone from that town entered a new life somewhere else.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17641&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Quotebut the dimensions x,y,z, and the forward arrow of time.

Whatever that means.

QuoteSo I think that about wraps it up. You haven't taken the leap in conceptual thinking so the rest of the conversation is a complete waste of my time and your time. You'll never grasp anything anyone says, you need to expand your mind first. (see below)

On the contrary, I don't think you fully grasp what you're saying. You have (very ignorantly, imo) assumed that the astral dimensions and the dimensions proposed in new theories of quantum physics are the same - without any evidence. This is entirely different from believing in the astral to begin with. I'm convinced that if anyone wants evidence in the astral as a spiritually enlightened reality of creativity and power, all they need do is a good week or two of solid, diligent dream journaling. There's plenty of evidence for wider reality in our own dreams. But it is a different matter to look at quantum theory feel the need to buttress your ignorance with it.

I'm sorry, BilllionNamesofGod, I don't know what to say, because it appears that you're the one who has made up his mind, and you're the one stuck in a land that requires you to believe things you have neither witnessed or understand.

I hope that post didn't sound too scathing. I'm just very saddened by the divide that exists between science and spirituality - because it's not entirely the fault of science, it's ours as well.

Quote from: TelosOn the contrary, I don't think you fully grasp what you're saying. You have (very ignorantly, imo) assumed that the astral dimensions and the dimensions proposed in new theories of quantum physics are the same - without any evidence.

Sorry you are confused I never actually said that!

For the sake of getting confused with what "dimensions" means in terms of Mathematical sense in Quantum Physics, and  other dimensions experienced in Astral Projection - I think it's a pointless discussion.

The discussion is you need evidence, and me and most people don't.

Einstien didn't need the evidence to come up with his theories, or cosmologists (who are pure scientists) takes leaps of faith without any evidence, and physics people like everett who formulate the multi-dimentional view purely in numbers - don't need any evidence. They cannot comprehend these other dimensions but has additional numbers on paper, that neatly solve all their problems - No quantum physics person can truly translate those constructs into their real life components, just a Flatlander cannot see the 3rd dimension, no-matter what he does, the evidence will never appear in his 2D plane, there's no point in looking for it.  But the 2D flatlander can *imagine* a third dimension by a leap of faith because it makes sense, and explains the weird going on.  But that's all it is a leap of faith, and figures on a piece of paper.
Nothing like him astral projection and "experiencing" this mysterious 3d dimension, and relating his experiences. Ones inner experience and one is maths on a piece of paper, and a leap of faith.  

The point is religion/spirtually also needs a leap of faith. So both scientists and religious people are doing the same thing - taking leaps of faith without any evidence.

The problem I see it, is that you are demanding evidence from the rest of us getting most upset about it, when you don't understand why there will never be any evidence, here is this physical world of 3D x,y,z, and forward time you percieve.

So you've just got to accept it, no point in arguing with me over it, I don't have it - I can't help you.  But at least I'm not wasting my time wresling with trying to fit mathematical dimensions constructs tha make equations work on paper which are just approximations to what's experienced in your inner self.

I really wish you could see it - it's real simple.  Imagine yourself in Einstiens shoes, he could clearly in his mind what amazing implications it meant, he had no evidence.   This same thing is happening all the the time in cosmology and quantum mechanics. Giant leaps are taken without any evidence whatsoever.  But we have no reason or evidence to doubt them.

Read the essay again.. You see it now?

Oh and I have experienced leaving my body. I still haven't confirmed the experience of a psychic power, but I have the feeling I'll be able to, as others have.

You recommended a lot of books to me. I'll definitely keep them on my list, although the "Tao of Physics" is quite famous [Edit: And quite infamous], and I think you would strengthen your own skills to read the literature available that criticizes it. There is so much of it, and I have read so little.

I've started a thread on a CSICOP article that mentions the "Tao of Physics." Will you join?

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17662

I had some friends that took a Theology of Natural Sciences course. It looked like quite an interesting class, but it was a lot of reading and they were not excited about it (to provide some context, they aren't interested in dreams). I was looking at the textbooks while over at their apt one day, and one of their textbooks was a deep criticism of the conclusions in the "Tao of Physics," and how they were dubiously arrived at. I am not saying I necessarily agree, but the arguments were pretty strong, and I am in the process of trying to find it and read it so we can examine its claims.

QuoteFor the sake of getting confused with what "dimensions" means in terms of Mathematical sense in Quantum Physics, and other dimensions experienced in Astral Projection - I think it's a pointless discussion.

Okay. That's where we differ. I think just the opposite - that it's a very important discussion.

QuoteThe discussion is you need evidence, and me and most people don't.

Again, I'm very sad to hear you say that. To me, it looks like you've closed your mind. But, you should have the freedom to do that, if you like!

QuoteEinstien didn't need the evidence to come up with his theories, or cosmologists (who are pure scientists) takes leaps of faith without any evidence, and physics people like everett who formulate the multi-dimentional view purely in numbers - don't need any evidence.

Now I am confident that you are the one who is completely and utterly missing the point. Einstein very much needed evidence to come up with his theories - namely the shift in the perihelion of Mercury. Who would have ever thought that gravity took time to travel through space unless that perihelion shift was observed? I think it's fair to say that even Einstein would not have, for he came up with his equations by using his imagination to try to form new mathematical models that would explain that bizarre phenomena - not by channeling a spirit, not by divine revelation and not by taking a leap of faith. He was able to extrapolate a great deal, but that is very different from taking a leap of faith, because he had the observation of Mercury to back it up.

Einstein recognized every day that his theory was provisional, that his theory could've been overturned by new evidence. Maybe it will be! Just like Newton. Also, just like Newton, his mathematical models might still be useful for applications within a certain range, the same way we still used Newton's equations to put a probe on Titan and rovers on Mars.

QuoteThe point is religion/spirtually also needs a leap of faith.

Isn't that what religion does by definition? Do you mean that religions need to take leaps of faith into other religions?

QuoteSo both scientists and religious people are doing the same thing - taking leaps of faith without any evidence.

That's funny, because I think most scientists would disagree with you... before laughing.

QuoteThe discussion is you need evidence, and me and most people don't.

No, but I'm very sad that that's what you've turned this discussion into. You've categorically dismissed my questions by saying I'm a Flatlander, and that if I experienced AP I would know better.

I have experienced AP. I don't know better. What a conundrum! Maybe I've only experienced a "flatland AP?"

QuoteThe problem I see it, is that you are demanding evidence from the rest of us getting most upset about it, when you don't understand why there will never be any evidence, here is this physical world of 3D x,y,z, and forward time you percieve.

I hope I do not seem demanding. I just don't see the evidence, and I was wondering if that was because I didn't understand it. I offered my criticism to pinpoint the areas in which I'm having trouble. And you're telling me my area of trouble is faith? You might as well point me to a priest, minister, or rabbi, or someone who knows nothing of quantum physics...

QuoteSo you've just got to accept it, no point in arguing with me over it, I don't have it - I can't help you.  But at least I'm not wasting my time wresling with trying to fit mathematical dimensions constructs tha make equations work on paper which are just approximations to what's experienced in your inner self.

Just because they make equations work doesn't mean that that's how world is. BillionNamesofGod, think of it like a story. You could write a story, and I would tell you where there are plot oversights, and offer you some extra characters ("extra dimensions") that would make the story work. Does that mean your story explains the world?

QuoteI really wish you could see it - it's real simple.  Imagine yourself in Einstiens shoes, he could clearly in his mind what amazing implications it meant, he had no evidence.

Good lord. You appear so genuinely misguided, I feel sorry for you. I'll pray for you. [Edit: I'm not joking]

QuoteThis same thing is happening all the the time in cosmology and quantum mechanics. Giant leaps are taken without any evidence whatsoever.

It's a shame that you don't see all the giant leaps that were wrong.

QuoteBut we have no reason or evidence to doubt them.

Open your eyes!

QuoteRead the essay again.. You see it now?

I have read this essay many times, so if you have any specific points that it mentions that you would like to discuss, I am prepared to listen.

Maybe you should read something other than this essay, or something that doesn't reverberate the same message? Or maybe you should even do some experiments of your own? I'd love to hear about them.

Quote from: TelosYou recommended a lot of books to me. I'll definitely keep them on my list, although the "Tao of Physics" is quite famous, and I think you would strengthen your own skills to read the literature available that criticizes it. There is so much of it, and I have read so little.

I do seek out this information.
The most important thing you can study is scientific heretics


Taking of books you want to study:

Relativity Visualized by  Lewis Carroll.

At some point you will truly understand just what a giant conceptual leap Einstien made, and being a skeptic, you should not ever doubt what such a leap he made - without any evidence.  His theories were only recently proved, don't you think it's odd no-one ever doubted his theories when they were so way out there, and had no proof?

Think back and study scientific heracy, and you will start to see amazing, truly amazing things.  Things so emotional and deep, you can't believe it.
You learn that one person is correct and the entire world does not believe him. Can you imagine how that feels? Now he was only recently forgiven by the vatican.  But he was right, and the rest of the world was wrong.

Every scientific discovery begins this way, no-one believes them, not even fellow scientists.  I think for you it's the most valuable thing you will ever study being a skeptic, because it's historical fact.
I get quite sad when I read the Einstien who took the most giant leaps, never accepted the quantum, and scientists moved on making amazing discoveries, because god does, indeed play dice.

Quote from: Telos

I hope I do not seem demanding. I just don't see the evidence, and I was wondering if that was because I didn't understand it. I offered my criticism to pinpoint the areas in which I'm having trouble. And you're telling me my area of trouble is faith? You might as well point me to a priest, minister, or rabbi, or someone who knows nothing of quantum physics...

Well, that is the whole point of the flatland book.  They don't get it,
they have trouble with it, and what they need is faith in the 3rd dimension.
Hence, my term in describing you as FlatLander is actually more accurate than you percieve.  You also like a flatlander, cannot accept that it takes a leap of faith to imagine objects likes spheres intersecting your world plane.  And yes, you would be better off talking to a buddhist, that's the leap you still haven't taken.

Quote from: Telos

Just because they make equations work doesn't mean that that's how world is. BillionNamesofGod, think of it like a story. You could write a story, and I would tell you where there are plot oversights, and offer you some extra characters ("extra dimensions") that would make the story work. Does that mean your story explains the world?

yes.  It does that's the point.  Everett adding extra dimensions solved all the problems. it's the same story again and again - extra dimensions we can never percieve in our daily lives. If the extra dimensions solves everything, it just takes a leap of faith in that story, and go beyond.
The problem is you don't get analogies, and un-able to extrapolate "what if" thinking.

Quote from: Telos
Maybe you should read something other than this essay, or something that doesn't reverberate the same message? Or maybe you should even do some experiments of your own? I'd love to hear about them.

Yes, see book reference above. (Relativity Visualised)

I really wish you could see it - it's real simple.  Imagine yourself in Einstiens shoes, he could clearly in his mind what amazing implications it meant, he had no evidence.

You say Einstien had proof? Oh really? did he personally look for it? no. It came later, by other people, he had complete faith.  So you must understand time, which are aren't. You don't seem to grasp the flow of time, and history.  At the specific time he published there was no evidence of any kind. Remember for this to work, you must fix your self at that time-frame in the past, but also bear in mind later experience Einstien didn't know about that proved his theory. You have amazing extra dimension that you know Einstien is correct, and he will be proven correct, but at that time, there is zero evidence.

What you need to do, being a skeptic you cannot doubt Einstien.
You need to fully grasp (see book reference above) it.

Imagine yourself as Einstien the exact moment he published his paper - there was no evidence at that point. Imagine what he imagined.

How can someone imagine all this? How is this possible.  This is what you need to understand.

You see - it all starts with imagination, in your mind - this is were you take the leap of faith - I've taken it, you haven't.

I've done the above experiment, and I can tell, you it's truly amazing to imagine those things, and tuly believe you are correct.

That feeling is in that essay.

Have you ever heard of the perihelion shift in Mercury's orbit? It was an astronomical enigma that went against Newtonian physics. Einstein was famous because his theory explained this phenomenon. Your just so wrong in saying that he had no evidence. So completely wrong.

If you read it in a book, I think you misinterpreted it. "Relativity Visualized" was also not written by Lewis Carroll (that was the author of Alice in Wonderland), but was written by Lewis Carroll Epstein. Just to clarify. ;)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/093521805X/102-3118805-6009722

Thank you for the recommendation, although I think I understand the basics of relativity pretty well, after studying it in my high school advanced physics course.

Really, I would come back to school after I graduate and get a Ph.D. in quantum physics if I thought it would help people learn to AP. All of us should.

---

Anyways, I'm not trying to be a skeptic. Because I offered that Einstein quote of "never stop questioning," doesn't mean I actually believe in doubt, but to show you that relativity wasn't arrived at through blind faith.

I said at the beginning of this thread:

QuoteI therefore submit this criticism not as a skeptic, but as an experimenter who has found these claims delusive in practice, and possibly intellectually dishonest.

Yes, not in theory, but in practice. In theory, it's just fine to suggest that we are all flatlanders and that there might be dimensions we don't know about. It helps explain a lot of our other theories. Great. Have all the dimensions you want.

However, in practice it is entirely different. BillionNamesofGod, will you travel to the future and then travel in the past for me? No? Oh, I must be thinking like a flatlander for asking that question. No worries - I think that question is very trivial, because in the context of "reality creation," which is ostensibly what we do through dreams and other pan-psychic phenomena, wondering about multidimensionality just seems to me very ridiculous.

Applying the word "dimension" to spirituality is metaphor. It's poetry.

QuoteThat feeling is in that essay

That feeling is also in a lot of poetry. And the Bible. There's nothing wrong with feeling this way. I love poetry!

But it's irresponsible and dishonest to take a metaphor and present it as explicit fact. Not to mention silly.

You say you wish that I could see it so that I could feel the way you do. Well, you don't have to worry. I've already felt the bliss of self-deluded ignorance.

You say in the other thread about this:

Quote from: Telos

No, June 27th. ;)
But when it comes I'll have to ask for Roger Penrose's new book, ambitiously named The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679454438/qid=1109776185/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-3118805-6009722)

The funny thing is, the reviews are saying the book lives up to its name. Especially since it makes people mathematically literate in the theories.

Well that's interesting isn't it?  I think you and Roger Penrose Wouldn't get on at all!
He like me believes that your brain is a quantum computer, and everything else I've been going about.

So that's very interesting. If you such a skeptic why are you a fan of Roger Penrose?  Respected Scientist, but also believer in all the quantum tomfoolery, you don't believe in.

Please read the paper:

Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

So far as I'm concerned case closed - not even penrose is a skeptic you are.

I believe everything that article to be true, you don't and it's accepted by someone you respect. I also believe everything penrose had written about the quantum, and it matches pefectly to Buddhism, and those leaps of faith.

QED

Case Closed. Your a skeptic, and not even a true scientist,  you don't even view the world like scientist like penrose. So it's a pointless discussion penrose gets  it, I get it, and everyone else in the forum does.  There is no room for skeptics here - it's the wrong place.

;-)

Once again you've proven to be quite the ignoramus.

Penrose takes no stock in extra dimensions.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66751,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

You really ought to pull your head out of the sand. And try really hard to not put your head back in other sand. I mean, honestly, that's so Flatlandish.

Quote from: TelosOnce again you've proven to be quite the ignoramus.

Penrose takes no stock in extra dimensions.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66751,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

You really ought to pull your head out of the sand. And try really hard to not put your head back in other sand. I mean, honestly, that's so Flatlandish.

Sorry, case closed, I didn't mention "Dimensions" in way in my last post regarding Penrose.

So time to call it a day on this one.  Read the penrose books, and study them hard, I mean very hard - evenutally you'll might get to understand penrose, frankly from your point of view, quite outlandish leaps without any evidence. Yes, leaps of faith in effect, all the maths in the books just makes his leaps of faith more realistic, but you don't need them.
The wired article quite clearly says he's going right off into his imagination - but he's right, but he'll never be proven right - no-one truly can measure anything on quantum level. So what's left is intuition, imagination and leaps of faith -all stuff you skeptics hate - so case closed.
;-)

Just to make sure. Do you think you can just make stuff up and always be right? Like, what if I said the present King of France is bald? Is that true because I took the blind leap of faith?

Otherwise, thank you for being kind enough to leave space for someone who actually wants to have a legitimate discussion. If you're interested about more quantum neuroscience, check out The Quantum Brain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471441538/qid=1109816707/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-3118805-6009722?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Jeffrey Satinover. And don't hesitate to look at transhumanist books like Ray Kurzweil's stuff. Why do you think I hate imagination? It's just laughable you think I'm a skeptic. Write me when you get out of Flatland.

Quote from: TelosJust to make sure. Do you think you can just make stuff up and always be right? Like, what if I said the present King of France is bald? Is that true because I took the blind leap of faith?

Otherwise, thank you for being kind enough to leave space for someone who actually wants to have a legitimate discussion.

Now we are getting somewhere...


YES!


Einstien did  and Penrose is doing  it right now. You can "Imagine" and be correct. (not make it up in your skeptic talk)  Remember my previous musings?  It all starts in the imagination before it's built or proved. You have to know what proof you are looking for in your mind before you find it.  You example is nonsense, it's not a scientific leap of faith based on assumptions, analogies, and Holistic Logic as I call it now.

Like Light acts like a wave.

Like Light acts like a particle.

How can it be both? Jesus God Knows, but Well, let's assume it's both (no proof why) and move on. Everything in Quantum Physics is Leaps of faith based on quite crazy assumptions, but it's just how it is. You can make maths to represent them, and look clever, but it's still completely crazy way out stuff, that makes no sense at all to most people.  Assumptions which make sense, if you take oboard other dimensions. I think if you stick with Penrose and his leaps of faith that the mind is a Quantum Computer.   I mean I've always thought the for very similar reasons. Does that make me  a genious like Penrose?

Or are we all just spotting what's just quite obvious, but what appears on the surface as quite crazy assumptions - but it works it fits, and it makes sense no matter how weird and crazy it sounds. You just have difficulty that it's so crazy. But the whole of modern cosmology and quantum physics drove Einstien crazy, even he couldn't accept it.
Accept it and move on, that's my advice. If people who study the quantu, physics can take these giant leaps of faith why can't you?

Ahh.

See, I was under the impression that there is no present King of France.

Quote from: TelosAhh.

See, I was under the impression that there is no present King of France.

Your confusing facts with leaps of faith based on assumptions.

The capital of France is Paris. Big Deal.

Light is a particle and a wave - well leap of faith.

There is  big difference. One's something on a quantum level we can never see, and ones a guy who's bald....

;-)

QuoteYour confusing facts with leaps of faith based on assumptions.

Ah, I thought you were asserting leaps of faith based on assumptions were facts.

QuoteThe capital of France is Paris. Big Deal.

It is for the French.

QuoteLight is a particle and a wave - well leap of faith.

Have you ever considered that light is neither a particle nor a wave, but something we don't understand that shows behaviors of both? I was just watching a BBC program with a scientist from IBM saying that he's convinced that electrons are waves - period. And that our tendency to look at it as a particle is not mysticism, but the limits of our models.

QuoteThere is big difference. One's something on a quantum level we can never see

Really, never? Have you ever seen the quantum corral pics from IBM?

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/corral.html

I find your...lack of faith disturbing. ;)

Quote, and ones a guy who's bald..

Whom we also cannot see, because there is no present King of France. Or is there... maybe we should poll the French?

Just to make sure I'll want to quote you again and respond.

QuoteThere is big difference. One's something on a quantum level we can never see, and ones a guy who's bald...

You have them the other way around. We can see quantum level stuff but we cannot see the present King of France.

Hello Telos and BillionNamesofGod.
Sorry that I couldn't join this thread earlier.  Over time, I'll try to answer Telos' statements of his detailed and thoughtful opening post of 28 Feb 2005 01:38 in several messages.
 
Telos wrote:

QuoteUnfortunately, after I finished reading (and rereading) the essay, I was unable to apply it to my life, especially over the long term.

This surprises me, because I had the opposite experience.  My life had changed profoundly after my vision of higher reality that led to my essay "Revolution in Common Sense".  It all boils down to live with the understanding that we are all connected, that we are all One.  It means that it is the smart thing to do, to love your neighbor as yourself, because you hurt yourself when you hurt another, with you and he being parts of the same One.  And it is smart to love the great One-of-Everything, because this puts you in harmony with your innermost self, which is identical with the One-of-Everything.  We call this happiness.

Please understand, that this follows naturally from the Holistic Logic developed in my 1991 essay and updated in my 2003 book.  It just so happens that these rational conclusions correspond to what we have been told some 2000 years ago by a very famous enlightened individual.  It also happens that the conclusions of Holistic Logic closely correspond to key results of Einstein's relativity theory and of quantum mechanics.  I am not saying that contemporary physics leads conclusively to the spiritual statements from two millennia ago, but the correspondence between the two is rather remarkable when viewed through Holistic Logic.

I realized this in 1947 and I have tried to implement the conclusions in my life, using myself as a "guinea pig", if you will.  I have made my mistakes during this quest, and I have learnt from them.  But over more than half a century I have witnessed an ever-increasing similarity between modern physics and Holistic Logic, not to speak of the many volumes of books that have appeared on the market, written by scientists as well as channelers, supporting the views gained from Holistic Logic.  Thus I felt justified to introduce the term "Quantum Metaphysics".
 
Now, Telos, if you are unable to apply my essay to your life, perhaps we should find out why this is so, because I did not have this problem.  If you like, give me a few examples of how you failed to apply the contents of my essay to your life.  Maybe I can help unraveling the difficulties. You may also find the answers in my book, "Understanding the Grand Design: Spiritual Reality's Inner Logic" which deals specifically with practical applications.

Nonetheless, I'll address the points of your 28 Feb. post in later messages and we'll see how far I'll get, because my time for this is limited, unfortunately.

Talk to you later,

Jo.

JoWo, thank you for you reply.

QuoteIt all boils down to live with the understanding that we are all connected, that we are all One. It means that it is the smart thing to do, to love your neighbor as yourself, because you hurt yourself when you hurt another, with you and he being parts of the same One. And it is smart to love the great One-of-Everything, because this puts you in harmony with your innermost self, which is identical with the One-of-Everything. We call this happiness.

This is a very beautiful philosophy and I have no trouble applying that my life. However, more than 4 dimensions are not necessary for that conclusion.

I have had trouble applying quantum extradimensionality to my life, namely because we haven't observed its existence. JoWo, in your spiritual experience, what was it that made you think that what you were experiencing was quantum extradimensionality? Did you see electrons, gravitons, tachyons...? I have experienced spiritual extradimensionality, but what is there to say that it is related to proposed quantum extradimensionality? [Edit: Or rather, what is there to demonstrate that they are the same?]

Thank you for work.

Telos wrote:

QuoteThis is a very beautiful philosophy and I have no trouble applying that my life. However, more than 4 dimensions are not necessary for that conclusion.

It makes a difference whether you understand it as a beautiful philosophy or with the certainty of a law of physics.   It's the difference between nice moral guidelines versus hard-nosed rational common sense.  

QuoteJoWo, in your spiritual experience, what was it that made you think that what you were experiencing was quantum extradimensionality?

What I experienced was a clear vision of the relationship between wholes and their parts, which involves dimensions beyond those of our physical environment.  I didn't see these dimensions as mathematically definable space dimensions, but as added "degrees of freedom" beyond our physical world.  My deep understanding of the inner relationship of parts versus their common wholes virtually exploded in a realization that the entire universe consists of such relationships, including those of living beings.  The relationship between quantum waves and particles was one of the obvious examples.  So was the perceived difference of 3-D space and time versus their Minkowski/Einstein's 4-D environment as their whole.  So were ants as parts of the whole of their ant colony, etc. etc. It was an understanding of the age-old puzzle that led to the definition of the Holy Trinity.  

It requires an understanding that the 'whole' must have more dimensions than its individual parts.  And by "dimension" I mean "degree of freedom" the capability to extend along an additional direction.  This was exactly what quantum physicists grappled with.  I could easily "visualize" quantum effects such as the double-slit experiment and Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem, and this was back in 1947 when scientists held on to their four-dimensional worldview.  By now, their view has grown to 11 or 12 dimensions.  It depends on how many different types of phenomena one wants to unite in one theory.  The more diversity, the higher the number of dimensions in the common whole.

It takes more than four dimensions to explain the behavior of subatomic parts and it takes many more to address life phenomena.  What kind of dimensions we are talking about depends on the kind of phenomena, but the underlying law is the same for all, as I perceived it.  It's a universal law, I am sure.  Can I prove it?  Can you prove that superstring theory is correct?  No.  But do you want to reject a fundamental holistic relationship because you can't prove it scientifically yet, even though it dramatically simplifies the explanation of complex phenomena?  My certainty comes from the fact that I have lived with this over half a century, and I have yet to encounter a situation where it does not apply.  It just is too obvious to me and I have received many letters from individuals who "get it" immediately and who thank me for having changed their lives.  

Are these dimensions the same as those of the spiritual world?  I don't know whether we can say so on a one by one basis.  However, the question is whether there is a world beyond our physical world, a world that we cannot directly perceive, a world that influences our physical environment in mysterious ways, a world with degrees of freedom beyond the ones we experience, then my answer is a definite Yes.  I prefer to call this world "multi-dimensional" (meaning "more than our 3-D space and 1-D time dimensions), adopting this term from Jane Roberts' Seth books.  In the past, people called this kind of world "spiritual".

I am sure that there are differences between multi-dimensional phenomena in quantum physics and others that affect our lives.  However, one basic conclusion of Holistic Logic is that nothing whatsoever exists that does not have life at its innermost core, if ever so rudimentary.  So there is no clear demarcation between life and "dead matter" and we cannot separate the concept of physical multi-dimensionality from spiritual reality.  It's just a matter of semantics.

Jo.

JoWo, thank you once again for your reply.

Quote from: JoWoIt makes a difference whether you understand it as a beautiful philosophy or with the certainty of a law of physics. It's the difference between nice moral guidelines versus hard-nosed rational common sense.

Yes, I agree. The science of ecology is hard-nosed rational common sense. What affects part of the ecosystem affects the whole ecosystem. What effects one ecosystem affects other apparently different ecosystems. There it is - hard-nosed rational common sense without the need for extra dimensions, or any understanding of quantum physics. While still beautiful!

I also see the same thing all the time in my economics classes. What affects one economy affects another, etc. Our interconnectedness is firmly established.

Quote from: JoWoI could easily "visualize" quantum effects such as the double-slit experiment and Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem, and this was back in 1947 when scientists held on to their four-dimensional worldview.

Were you ever able to make predictions based on this heightened visualization?

Quote from: JoWoCan I prove it? Can you prove that superstring theory is correct? No. But do you want to reject a fundamental holistic relationship because you can't prove it scientifically yet, even though it dramatically simplifies the explanation of complex phenomena?

I would definitely not reject it. But, you know that proof is one thing, and evidence is another. I am not concerned with proof as much as I am for evidence (that's why I'm not a skeptic, BillionNamesofGod). We might not be able to prove string theory correct, but we can find evidence, even if it's only in the form of prediction. I hope I do not sound like I am rejecting - on the contrary, I'm embracing it by questioning it (which is not the same as doubting it). I am looking for evidence. But we should consider every considerable option.

With regards to quantum physics, I don't think you can say that extra dimensions are necessary to explain subatomic particles. They might be sufficient for some explanations, and still not necessary.

I do not want to trivialize string theory, but people add degrees of freedom all the time into theories - that's what our imagination tends to do. In murder mysteries, we theorize that our assassin had an accomplice. In conspiracy theories, we consider that isolated events are connected by Illuminati-type organizations. Religion has always functioned to add a degree of freedom into the picture.

Imagination has so much freedom, and so many dimensions.

With regards to spirituality, absolutely - many degrees of freedom are necessary to have such experiences. That's kind of what the experiences are, aren't they? Freedom from ordinary waking senses? For certain kinds of spiritual experiences, one must have a highly free and open mind, an open intellect, a great deal of curiosity, and willingness, amongst other things. I think BillionNamesofGod would say that this includes a willingness to take leaps of faith, and in this context I would not disagree with him. Spirituality requires many degrees of freedom.

Quote from: JoWoMy certainty comes from the fact that I have lived with this over half a century, and I have yet to encounter a situation where it does not apply.

Here, if you mean degrees of freedom, I understand and agree. However, I'm not sure you mean quantum extradimensions, because then shouldn't you be able to make testable predictions? Again, I hope I don't sound like I'm "demanding proof."

I'm looking for demonstrable applications.

Quote from: JoWoIt just is too obvious to me and I have received many letters from individuals who "get it" immediately and who thank me for having changed their lives.

Yes, I had the same feeling of "getting it," when I read your essay. Which is why I was excited to apply your ideas. However, after about a year, it seems that that feeling is very recognizable as the pleasure of being in one's imagination, where there are many degrees of freedom, and not the pleasure of being on Earth, where there are apparently only 4 degrees of freedom (one of them limited to a singular direction). I have tried to apply multi-dimensionality to Earth. I should be able to affect the changes I want beyond using the 4 degrees, and even break the limit off that 4th degree.

I have not been able to travel into the past. I have not been able to free myself from the perfunctory necessity of getting a college degree. I have not been able to see into the future. I have not been able to levitate large objects, fly, teleport, grow, shrink, communicate telepathically, etc... except when I'm dreaming. And I have done quite a bit of it in dreams, where there are many degrees of freedom. But not in the physical world, where there are apparently only 4 (one of them limited to only direction, an important distinction).  

Quote from: JoWoAre these dimensions the same as those of the spiritual world?  I don't know whether we can say so on a one by one basis.  However, the question is whether there is a world beyond our physical world, a world that we cannot directly perceive, a world that influences our physical environment in mysterious ways, a world with degrees of freedom beyond the ones we experience, then my answer is a definite Yes.

So, when you say we cannot directly perceive it, you mean we can only perceive it in our dreams?

Because I can see a lot of things in dreams.

Quote from: JoWoI prefer to call this world "multi-dimensional" (meaning "more than our 3-D space and 1-D time dimensions), adopting this term from Jane Roberts' Seth books.  In the past, people called this kind of world "spiritual".

I would have to concur. The spiritual world has many dimensions, if by dimension you mean degrees of freedom. Whether or not these are the same dimensions hypothesized in string theory remains a lurid mystery. But it's not so mysterious when you consider how incredibly vast one's freedom is in dreams, and how incredibly limited it is in the physical world.

Quote from: JoWoI am sure that there are differences between multi-dimensional phenomena in quantum physics and others that affect our lives.  However, one basic conclusion of Holistic Logic is that nothing whatsoever exists that does not have life at its innermost core, if ever so rudimentary.  So there is no clear demarcation between life and "dead matter" and we cannot separate the concept of physical multi-dimensionality from spiritual reality.  It's just a matter of semantics.

See, this is where I have a problem reading spiritual literature. I'd love to see harmony, namely between spiritualists and scientists. However, when I think of "life" I think of it as a classification of biology. When you apply that word to the entire universe, I think of it as a metaphor. For biology, there is a clear distinction between a rock and a spider - spiders move autonomously, rocks don't, spiders are made of cells, rocks aren't, spiders have DNA, rocks don't, etc. I know, I'm not suprising you. But what would you call the distinction between spiders and rocks, if not life and dead matter? I'm not trying to trip you... I'm just trying to not think of what you're talking about in metaphor.

Frank says the difference is "Intent," but I think of that as metaphor too. I have intent, and others have intent, and they sometimes conflict. If the All-entity has intent, then shouldn't that be our intent as well? Is the All-entity intending for me to be confused? If so, that makes me kind of upset! ;)

I'm compelled to quote here, I got this from the book I'm reading now:

'Adventures Beyond the Body' by William Buhlman


Page 233:


" Man's Mind stretched to a new idea, never goes back to it's orginal dimensions " - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

-----

Some people are skeptics, and will not open their minds, and take any leap of faith. I think it's best to leave it at that, to agree to disagree, as you are constantly on the negative, and not willing to accept even very well established leaps of faith that even scientists take these days, so I can't get even staying in the domain of pure proven science.

So I'll just have to agree to disagree respectfully in this case, and my mind is expanded now, and really can't go back.  I don't want to go back to 2D flatland thinking, I was never happy there.  I'm happy thinking Multi-dimensionally, and treating dreams as real as waking reality.  Humans must pursue what makes them ultimately happy, I sincerely hope you find what you are looking for!

:-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Telos,
I wrote:

QuoteIt makes a difference whether you understand it as a beautiful philosophy or with the certainty of a law of physics. It's the difference between nice moral guidelines versus hard-nosed rational common sense.

You answered:

QuoteYes, I agree. The science of ecology is hard-nosed rational common sense. What affects part of the ecosystem affects the whole ecosystem. What effects one ecosystem affects other apparently different ecosystems. There it is - hard-nosed rational common sense without the need for extra dimensions, or any understanding of quantum physics. While still beautiful!

You did not get my point, Telos, and I don't believe that any further discussion will change that.  I am sorry.

Jo.

JoWo, I was introducing the point that you may not be as hard nosed at you think. Will you at least consider answering this one question?

I said,

QuoteWith regards to quantum physics, I don't think you can say that extra dimensions are necessary to explain subatomic particles. They might be sufficient for some explanations, and still not necessary.

Are extra dimensions necessary for subatomic particles?

[Edit: I think that is a slightly different question from asking whether or not such dimensions exist.]

Telos,

As I see it, the extra dimensions make it a lot easier to explain quantum phenomena, similar to how it was easier to assume that the Earth rotates around the Sun, and not the other way around.  At that time, it was not considered necessary to make that assumption, but it sure helped.

Jo.

Hello Everyone,

Telos and I agreed in a PM conversation that we misunderstood one another because our language is too limited to clearly express multiple "degrees of freedom"  :) .  Our dialog led also to a new subject.  Please see the topic: "What is the will of All-Entity?"

JoWo

I just read your article for the first time and must say I'm stunned. It is really a great article. almost I would say the work of a genius, except maybe the last sentence:

QuoteAmericans could lead this trend with a renewed American Dream.

Why do have Americans to be so patriotic?  :lol:

Anyways you present the ideas very well and manage to fuse science with Spirituality without creating a mess (like most others) I really think it is a breakthrough in thinking, It makes sense!
. At least I haven't read about this holon-ideas before, maybe I don't read enough...........
I have some questions though:

-Holon concept works, as I understand it, only if you have something besides the Holon. For example the Kristal + 3D-Space because you need a Place for the holon to exist. So, would this lead to the conclusion that there is something outside All-Entity?

-Did I understand you right that All-Entity does evolve and grow?
This again gives me headaches. If something evolves doesn't that mean it was less evolved once thus started to exist once?

-How can All-Entity have a will? If something is all there is, there is no Place to go, therefore a will is meaningless :?

-Do you have a theory how mind can interact with matter?

Cheers Tom

Hello Tombo

Thank you very much for your flattering comments, though I don't consider myself being in the genius category  :( .

QuoteI would say the work of a genius, except maybe the last sentence:
Quote:
"Americans could lead this trend with a renewed American Dream."

Why do have Americans to be so patriotic?

Having come from Germany (decades ago), I intended this comment to be encouraging, not as an expression of one-upmanship  :) .

QuoteHolon concept works, as I understand it, only if you have something besides the Holon. For example the Kristal + 3D-Space because you need a Place for the holon to exist. So, would this lead to the conclusion that there is something outside All-Entity?

Excellent question! Please note that I wrote:

QuoteImagine a cut crystal, say a diamond, and consider only its form, ignoring its material

In other words, we are thinking of space only, and the crystal does not actually exist except in our mind.  It is a "thought experiment".  The holon concept does not require anything outside the holon.  

QuoteDid I understand you right that All-Entity does evolve and grow?
This again gives me headaches. If something evolves doesn't that mean it was less evolved once thus started to exist once?

The holistic Whole of the universe, which I called All-Entity, is in a continuous state of flux.  Otherwise it would be dead, and we would be dead with it.  Seers have said that All-Entity is "breezing" in and out over eons, endlessly.  Remember that this is in our terminology. In ultimate reality, time does not exist in our terms.  There is no beginning and no end.  Rather think of life evolving in circles or spirals.

QuoteHow can All-Entity have a will? If something is all there is, there is no Place to go, therefore a will is meaningless  

Excellent point again. Please read the topic "What is the will of All-Entity"

QuoteDo you have a theory how mind can interact with matter?

Yes:  all possible situations do already exist in multi-dimensional reality.  We "realize" in our physical environment only what resonates with our mindset.  For more information, please consult my book, "Understanding the Grand Design".  It's too much for this forum.

Jo.

QuoteSeers have said that All-Entity is "breezing" in and out over eons, endlessly. Remember that this is in our terminology. In ultimate reality, time does not exist in our terms. There is no beginning and no end. Rather think of life evolving in circles or spirals.

I can accept that time is probably just a human thing, but I can not understand it :roll:

If something evolves in Circles does imply that it goes back to were it was sooner or later. Isn't that kind of dead as well? a dynamic dead in a way. I would prefer a Universe that has the potential to create new things. Going in Circles does sound kind of boring..........

QuoteYes: all possible situations do already exist in multi-dimensional reality.

By this do you mean all states our Universe can possibly have? Like a complete identical Universe to our current one just with the exception that one molecule is moving in a sightly different angle? Meaning that there is a Universe were I killed my sister, married my mother etc...
This does sound pretty self-defeating, if you ask me.

QuoteDo you have a theory how mind can interact with matter?

What do you think about the following theory?
In order to interact two things most poses similar "properties". For example: Time can not interact with Color, Mass can  interact with Energy.......
Therefore I would conclude that Mind and matter may appear different but that they are in fact made out of the same thing. Matter may just be frozen thought, Or may be thoughts from the All-Entity.
I dont know if I was able to bring my point across, kind of hard in english........

QuoteFor more information, please consult my book, "Understanding the Grand Design". It's too much for this forum.

I'll put it on my wish list, has it been published in german? BTW I'm Swiss

http://home.ripway.com/2005-2/265334/Uni-Force.doc

Click here and read the link... Although it might not deal entirely with different dimensions... It does involve human/spirit/environment interaction...