On Aug 13, 7:26 am, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:

> I cannot exclude this, hence who knows. Still, it would be nicer not
> only to get the answer but also how it has appeared.

It appeared in stages over many years of thinking about these issues,
first in 1987 noticing the underlying four-fold symmetry of popular
divination systems; Tarot, I Ching, numerology, and astrology and
correlating that with theories of consciousness like Leary's 8-
neurocircuit model to arrive at a sort of a nuclear mandala of qualia
logic, a kind of wheel of stereotypes: 

There are three main patterns to this mandala, one which cycles around
the circumference as a progressive narrative, another which emanates
from the center as binary symmetry of archetypal opposites, and a
third which modulates the spectrum between the other two. As you push
out from the center, the pattern becomes less digital-discrete-
quantitative and more analog-compact-qualitative, bringing in
personality themes and storytelling.

I did have some interesting experiences with my own consciousness
since then, unintentionally through lack of sleep and obsessive
painting and debating with people online which contributed to my
thinking on the subject. I guess that I must have applied my nuclear
mandala logic to the types of arguments and style of arguments that I
ran into, particularly over months debating on an atheist forum. I
could see a clear dialectic between the extremism of atheist
materialism and the opposite extremism of the new-age spirituality
that I had been familiar with already. That led to the mural I
collaged together to illustrate the themes of that opposition:

The hypothesis of photon agnosticism (http://s33light.org/fauxton)
came around the same time, and although our house was struck by
lightning shortly after developing the idea, I'm not sure that there
was a revelatory moment at it's inception. I think a general
dissatisfaction with the ugly sprawl of the Standard Model in service
of the arithmetic of QM led me to suggest an alternative which
reconciles mind/body dualism and perception. A simple flip of the
topology at the subatomic level seemed to have an appeal for me that
reminded me of other times in my life when I had seen a simple
underlying pattern which others had not questioned. In kindergarten, I
actually was mentioned in the local newspaper because I was the only
kid who was able to see the Formal Operation logic of Piaget's
cylinder tasks (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4444748) at age 4 or 5
(rather than the expected 8-10). This is what photon agnosticism seems
like to me.

 I think that I may very well be ahead the curve on this, as I have
actively pursued any arguments which could falsify the hypotheisis,
debating with physics students and professors. I not only have not
found any compelling falsification for the idea, but my conversations
with the academics on this has consistently reinforced my perception
that the questioning of this assumption of dumb-particle photons is
not within the scope of the typical mind, suited as it would be for
the purely quantitative approach of contemporary physics.

Rather than a spirit of scientific curiosity or polite correction of
what my theory had overlooked, I found only seething anger and ad
hominem attacks on me personally - my style of writing or debating, my
lack of formal training, my iconoclastic attitude, all manner of
arguments from authority but nothing remotely addressing the simple
question: "What evidence do we have that photons physically exist?"
The irony of course, is that this kind of treatment is exactly what my
ACME-OMMM model predicts - that those who are most comfortable with
quantitative, literal logics will meet their qualitative, figurative
symmetry with blind fanaticism that eclipses the very spirit of the
Enlightenment worldview. In atheists and physicists alike I met
Inquisitors - sneering sophists devoted to an unquestionable anti-
theological orthodoxy.

So far in this group I have been quite pleasantly surprised at the
higher level of scientific curiosity as well as depth of knowledge. I
still don't know whether anyone has really considered that possibility
that that my hypothesis might be right, but it has been helpful to me
in refining my ideas further (http://www.stationlink.com/art/
SEEmap2.jpg). My entry into physics is really unintentional, so I am
completely unqualified to translate my idea into that language. It's
really not critical to my TOE, as sense could just occur on the
subatomic level instead - it could be quarks that are sensing each
other rather than molecules, so I have no major investment in being
correct about photons, I just think that there is a chance that the
weirdness of QM observations can be attributed entirely to the
topological shift at the microcosm being overlooked.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to