Thanks for the comments. It doubt it is a least action Universe. Have your read
into chaos
theory? It presents some interesting features not explicable otherwise. How
would you explain a
supernova, or Halton Arp's spawning of young galaxies by old ones? My now
intertretation of the
atom is as the law of three, postive and negative interaction harmonised and
balanced by the
proton which does not have a fixed value, perhaps not unlike a gaspedal of a
car? You'd have to
be using a special meaning for 'least', in which case least would mean "just
right" or suited
to the occasion.
C.T. proposes that order and chaos as Bohr, or was that Planck?, his
complementarity are it.
While least action is sort of Ockham like 'simple' again chaos theory shows
that very simple to
fast bifurcate into complex. I can't exactly reproduce the arguments of course
but I am
inpressed with some of the explanations. My fancy favours that pertinent levels
or appropriate
levels of force'energy seems better? Order after all is a selective subset of
chaos, as
distinct from 'random' which is anyhow a fiction.
Intuition, to call it that, for holistic access nicely picking out
pertinent details for
whatever, comes in three types, sort of
1: insertions into intellect when relaxing fronm a stint of work while minding
a problem,
showing a connection one had not considered. By Mind I mean attentively
pre-occupied, like
steeing on it.
2: Channeled take overs from intellect or beyond that which may be through any
of the senses,
like Kekule dreaming up his benzene ring. This includes personifications of
angels, aliens and
other ?indecorous? items. I dream my silly notions, dreaming in words. Then I
sit down and more
or less zombie thru as an article.
3: At a noumenal or what John Gowan calls psychedelic level of call it mastery.
Like in typing
up I used to be quite fast, now I go quite slowly, proof reading and emending
sentences as I
go, often coming up with words and phrases I knew not before, check out and
find them to be
correct.
Beyond all this I have an awareness of a greater awareness than mine, at a same
time just
unaffecedly observing and on occasion inlfuencing events, like there are
certain things I
cannot bring myself to do, which makes me laugh at debates about morality. On
the other hand I
have has some 70 odd weird happening when I am in a crisis of sorts, it simply
changes and
disappears. For another I do 'wild catting' a phrase jumps to mind I go surfing
and somewhere
among the pile of screen stuff there appears an item I needed but left for lack
of evidence.
on several occasions it saved my life. Hence call myself fey, not psychic.
I'm quite against drugs, although there are some good ones. They're just a
chemical bind that
lasts for its while. However for a suitably prepared mind it can be an eye
opener. Aldous used
L.S.D, so did Tim Leary, but both already were psychic as hell. When writing
Aldous was, like
Thomas Mann, totally zombied unaware of his environment. And he comes from a
long line of
geniuses. And yes one still does not know how but with practice it can be
turned on and off. It
surely is not done by any physical sense or trigger I know of. Another one is,
I wrote an
article on the scientif metod veing a match to the oracular methid. I wonered
sine wgy the had
not occurred to anyone before, And Bingo I just was shown a book ...the Myth of
the Scientific
Method, H. Bauer, where before I only had Dean Conant of Harvard calling it the
alleged SM. It
is a myth having hardly a thing to do with method, only a pernicious insistence
to find out,
whatever it is. And sometime it just pops up in the head, but not always. One
has to put in an
earnest of intent.
Duration uuhhmm, Well there's exo-senses the five of objects in space, but as
to time it is an
experience the location of which cannot be nailed down. So give the exosenses
their
frequencies, harmonised somehow into a world model. If so then what about
awareness able to
speed up and slow down like making a film or tape do that, so we can inspect
the parts and all
that. So although time and space are paired, we've no proof they are, except
for us. If you go
thru subjective experiences of time it comes at various speeds. I recall
hitting a brick wall
at about 1 k or less an hour, my brakes failed, and it seemed to last forever
at a same time as
I knew it was not. Anyhow I am not very good with time, without a watch I'm
lost. An Uncle of
mie though could not wear a watch, it simply stopped but not when worn by
others, and he could
tell the exact time, to the minute. To me the material universe is a facade,
one, perforce, I
have to put up with. We're certainly parochial in our interpretaions of the
universe, that's
where science fails.
Build imaginary objects, funny that, I've just written an article on Arts of
Memory devices, as
used in oral times, nothing like you can read up on inet as mnemonics, which is
kid stuff. Take
the kabala, that is a schema of pure relations divided vertially into male, and
female outer
pillars and horizontally into Crown for the noumenal, and then for formation or
process,
structure or pattern and dangling below kingdom for the world of appearances,
which is about as
neat as you may get it of a pale ghost of a theory of the universe.
adrian
Johnlawrencereedjr wrote
:
> Thank You, That's why I post, to reach others who may follow up on
> what's written. The sillies, having dogmatic minds auto project
> everybody else has. I have had mystical experiences, have noumenal
> access, not phenomenal as do many. I like John Curtis Gowan, his Book.
> "Operations of Increasing Order", is a freebie on internet. He had two
> degrees, one in math one in psychology. JohnCG used a Sigma curve of
> Trance, art and Psychedelic or transcendent. In Trance we get insights
> unrelated to anything else. For Art we play'project them in various
> forms until something fits together, The Psychedelic amounts to full,
> conscious access of how it works.
> jr writes>
> There are some accomplished physicists alive today that foolishly
> regard the psychedelic experience as invalid, with respect to the
> context you refer to. They have the idea that the mind cannot benefit
> from chemically altered consciousness. It's a pity. Alduous Huxley
> was an influence on me during my youth and I have benefitted from it.
>
> It's fascinating that John who says he never had any transcendental
> experiences worked that
> out. I took his creativity test and, apparently, scored highest, funny
> that. The mystical state is funny as it blows the mind out of all
> sensory data crunching. It serves as a gateway to henceforth self
> paced further development.
> jr writes>
> One can recognize possibilities of an extra-sensory nature without
> going there. Like those who die and are brought back, who speak of a
> tunnel of light. At the far end of which a voice offers "Are you
> ready?" Where you have a choice in cases. The psychedelic experience
> however, must be directly sensed. It allows you to "work it" but you
> still don't know how and the attempt to articulate that experience
> results in descriptive words that stretch the envelope like:
> electroskeletoidenal and psycho-amplitudinous, where nonetheless you
> can purge illness from your body.
> I have a similar interpretation for Time. Taking our rather varied
> experiences as products of harmonic resonances then the left over,
> unused access levels blend together in a bland background noise as
> time, not to include the lot that produced the now falsified Big Bang,
> but very like it. Ditto Gravity by that correlates to an energy push
> of fields way outside the materially obvious. Then it is that the
> noise a mystical experience senses and we can peel it apart in so
> called other dimensional access. By that this noise equates to the
> random, which ain't random but very polyphonic.
> jr writes>
> Time results from our sense of duration. Our sense of being.
> Consciousness. A direction exists for time beginning at our birth and
> ending at our projected death. Outside of this, with respect to the
> observed universe, time manifests as a regular and necessary, least
> action cyclic property of stable physical systems. We seek to describe
> the universe after our own image.
>
> Lightning works that way. At 2 billion Volts difference between sky
> and earth they found out, once we could fly in the stratosphere, that
> Lightning coming from clouds is fed far higher up in the sky and, it
> seems, ultimately from para solar fields.
> jr writes>
> I have projected a notion that the vortex manifestation of hurricane
> motion is connected to the dynamo that is the core of the Earth. Also
> lightning. However I have not taken these notions any further, altho'
> I have developed a basis for their cause, that is rational but not
> uniquely specific wrt cause,
> CHaitin, on Foundations of math, on his website has: Four provably
> equivalent definitions of mathematics:
> 1: Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you
> woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone. I do not know
> the author of this elegant definition put on the web by Dave Rusin.
> jr writes>
> This is equivalent to saying that we can build imaginary objects from
> dimensionless stationary or moving over time and space points, lines
> and angles solely within our mind and discover relationship after
> relationship that are properties of so constructed objects with some
> regular proportion. The problem with the universe being gone (outside
> the fact that we too would be gone) however, is that we could never
> connect this regularity to a universe.
>
> 2: The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before
> we can find them in
> things. Albert Einstein.
> jr writes>
> This may be correct but due to the fact that the universe is a least
> action universe and given enough time, we would have to make a
> connection sooner or later. Which comes first, the observance of
> regularity in the universe, or the mathematical discovery of
> regularity, is open.
>
> 3: In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to
> them. John von Neumann.
> jr writes>
> This has been true. Changed once we recognize that stable systems are
> least action systems and the math represents least action well.
> 4: Mathematicians are mad tailors: they are making "all the possible
> clothes" hoping to make also something suitable for dressing...
> Stanislaw Lem, "Summa Technologiae" (translated) ie, it's axiomatic
> and abstract, can produce actual and fictional patterns. So it's no
> guarantee its recipes of patterns are actually valid. Beyond this
> though math intimates how our brain works, after mind had set up the
> parameters. That's much the same as psychiatry for that social
> consensus reality's 'hallucination', Where on earth and in heaven does
> it come from? It surely does not come from outside the cosmic reality.
> So if so, it is a narrowly conceived 'reality' trying....
> jr writes>
> The math reflects the least action characteristics of the stable
> universe. The quantities that operate within this least action
> universe are considered fundamental if they are conserved. The
> property of being conserved within a least action universe means that
> they operate within the least action parameters without effect (except
> as we might sense (quantify) their existence. This does not make them
> causal outside of our interaction with them.)
> I apologize for responding to you even slower than others but I must
> have available time to extract addressable ideas from your posts.
> Have a good time.
> johnreed
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
