On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Pilar Morales <pilarmorales...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 love it. That's what I'm looking for, agreement or disagreement that
I can agree with.

> 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.

It's hard for me to get across two seemingly paradoxical motivations I
have with this info. On the one hand I feel like I have to really come
down hard on the OMMM worldview because I feel like our intelligence,
individually and collectively, is at the far extreme of the pendulum
swing at this time in our history, and that many of the problems of
civilization are a consequence of this extremism. It seems like if I
don't take a really critical stance at the problems I see with it,
then my ideas will automatically be seen as able to be integrated or
dismissed within the prevailing paradigm rather than offer a
comprehensive shift from it.

On the other hand, I want to make it clear that individually and
collectively we NEED this extreme quantitative logical skill as well.
I'm not anti-science, I'm saying that science needs to go further and
embrace all phenomena that we encounter and not just what can be
neatly nailed down. We need to be objective about subjectivity and not
be seduced by the sentimental attachment to literalism when
understanding processes of metaphor. So yes, it's extremely important
that some of us focus exclusively on the their specialty areas of
consciousness, but I think the world desperately needs a new general
worldview that embraces subjectivity scientifically, without reducing
it to mechanism, so that civilization doesn't regress into
fundamentalism, and so that we can move forward into an era of post-
religion, post-materialism.

> 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.

I agree, holy math is part of it, but I think that profane physics is
the other part. Pain and pleasure are not reducible to numbers. Qualia
must be experienced first hand or not at all. In the qualitative
realm, math is a forensic afterthought that is of limited use, just as
New Age intuition is a naive jumping to conclusions that is is of
limited use in the quantitative realm. It's still in there though,
otherwise anyone could be a math genius. You have to have a feel for
numbers, know them intimately, love their patterns rather than fear
them, etc. There is subjectivity there too.

> Regarding your thoughts on photon behavior, it seemed to me that you are
> saying that photons are the quantum entanglement of spacetime.

Close, but I also think that spacetime itself doesn't exist
independently of matter and energy. Space is literally nothing but the
relation between two material objects and time is nothing but the
relation between experiences (energy, events, and experience are more
or less the same thing. It's an inter-subjective perception of change
from one state to another).

>That they
> don't really travel through a medium, but that they will manifest through
> the entanglement of a sender and a receiver?

Right. It's sort of an unimagining of the model we assume when we turn
on a radio. We have been taught that there are radio waves in the
atmosphere, whereas my model describes an antenna imitating a
broadcast tower by tuning into the same metallic mood frequency. You
are listening to your ears hearing a speaker amplified antenna which
is hearing a radio tower that is broadcasting a microphone that is
hearing vocal chords being motivated by a human mind. They are all
calling out to each other in their own languages to share the same
mathematical invariance, yet the math is meaningless without being
listened to in the right way by the right organizations of the right
materials. The organization alone is not a radio show. The math is
wavy, and it propagates in a wave like pattern terrestrially, but
there is no literal wave propagates in space.

What I'm thinking then, is that photons are useful figments of
mathematics used to describe the logical underpinnings of this
process. On the microcosmic level, it could be considered molecular
quorum sensing. Like biological quorum sensing only without a chemical
substrate; it's just telesemantic, jumping across a vacuum like these
words are jumping across the internet, your screen, your eyes, brain,
and mind. The message is not a projectile traveling through space, it
is sensorimotive process executed electromagnetically across a
temporary separation of space and time.

Entanglement across space in this way I imagine is akin to sharing a
feeling. It's produced simultaneously within each node rather than
transported externally. Latency is not the result of zero permittivity
and permeability in a vacuum, it is the logical consequence of
perceptual relativity - an illusion of perspective which actually is
what we experience as timespace as distance between phenomena of
different scales and frequencies must be ordered with respect to the
relations between different perceptual frames of reference. Light from
a star takes a long time in human years to arrive on Earth, because
the distances are on an astronomical scale and we aren't. That has to
be honored to retain the integrity of the timespace illusion.


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