Craig, I'm wondering what would make my internal processes come up with not identical, but similar conclusions to what your theory seems to suggest. I went through your page and could relate to the questions you posed and saw a reflection of my own tendencies to integrate absolutely everything I observe, internally and externally into a category to explain everything. To me, anything I think that sounds new-agey is an internal tell tale that I'm going in the wrong direction. It's just the way my compass is calibrated, but I don't deny its existence.
My... intuition? tells me that it is all math, holy math if you will. An abstract class where we, humans and atoms alike, invoke and experience its instantiations. Regarding your thoughts on photon behavior, it seemed to me that you are saying that photons are the quantum entanglement of spacetime. That they don't really travel through a medium, but that they will manifest through the entanglement of a sender and a receiver? On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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: > http://www.stationlink.com/mystic/meta4.gif. > > 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: > http://s33light.org/ACMEOMMM > > 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. > > Craig > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.