Consciousness and ether theory

[The Inglorious One]

You pose some interesting ideas, but it's going to take time for me to digest. and it's too soon to tell if I can digest it at all.

[The Inglorious One]

I am an ether theorist who believes that our present reliance on quantum mechanics and relativity ("quantum empiricism"), for understanding cosmic phenomena and phenomena occurring in the "natural" world, is the wrong approach, and has been leading to confusion in the latter branches of physics.

I propose that natural forces arose early in the formation of the universe, and to properly understand such forces, we would need to adopt a rationale based on "cosmic origin" (not, as presently, applying our empirical observations of phenomena in our earthly environs.) -I have developed a theoretic model for how cosmic forces originated from an Original Space (space as it existed prior to the first appearance of forces.) Original space, therefore, would have been different from our present space. I submit that the only way to account for our present world of atomically-structured bodies (and the forces in space and the natural world, including the human being) would have to begin by thinking of how original space consisted of point-localities that oscillated symmetrically with each other, and that it underwent a change which led to our world of similarly structured, unit-based, forces everywhere.

I think I'm with you so far.

The way this could have occurred would be that as original space's oscillating point localities oscillated, a pair of adjacent "points" underwent oscillational fatigue, so that they fell toward each other in "Yin and Yang" fashion.

Still with you, but this is where my imagination begins to take over. When talking about self-existent states of being, you are talking about immutable and time-transcending conditions. Logically, broken symmetry as the result “oscillational fatigue” must be an inherent condition co-existent with “original space.” This means that an emergent property like the universe would be forever beginning and forever becoming ― and this is wholly consistent with QM (“Wheeler's Eye,”), not to mention many religious traditions.

(Oscillational fatigue occurs in metals, but since metallic oscillational fatigue is a quantum process, it can't be definitively correlated with oscillational fatigue in original space.) This paired-up unit would have represented a disturbance of the hitherto perfect symmetry of space, which then would have been propagated throughout all of space, producing a universal matrix of identical etheric energy units. -This would represent a suitable underlying matrix for the subsequent appearance of uniform orderly cosmic systems, and for buildups of larger energy systems, such as quantum energy systems. -The way the underlying etheric energy would work would be via vibrational resonance ("vibrational" as derived from the oscillational), in which elemental etheric units resonate with each other by forming loose connections (not "fixed" connections). A way to conceptualize this would be by analogizing the vibrating "arms" to "nodes" that connect with each other. - Vibrating elemental ether energy units would resonate perfectly linearly, from unit-to-elemental unit.

As larger scale energy systems later appeared, such as quantum energies, these larger energy units developed other energic behaviors (in addition to the vibrational mechanism of the elemental ether units they are built up of) - such as spin, vectors, perhaps non-linearity, and so on.

Fundamentally, this is consistent with scenario, but with mine, there is movement but no real change: everything changes but, ultimately, nothing changes.

One confusing physics phenomenon that finds a more rational explanation with this model would be the phenomenon physics now calls "quantum entanglement." -With the above ether model, a quantum-scale unit that is separated from a closely-related other quantum unit, and then appears to react synchronously to a change in the other unit, despite their being at distances too great for quantum forces to be acting (notwithstanding the "entanglement" hypothesis), actually is resonating with the other quantum unit vibrationally, via the elemental etheric units they both are composed of, through the underlying universal ether matrix.

You lost me, but I think you're talking about “original space” acting something like David Bohm's “implicate order.”

The above ether model also can lead to a more rational view of consciousness. -The idea here would be that in cognitive entities such as humans, their brain's electrical energy is basically transmitted via elemental etheric vibrational processes. -The energy patterns we observe with our earthbound quantum instruments, such as brain waves, "electronic" forces, and so on, are merely "incidental" manifestations at the larger quantum level that are "spin-offs" superimposed on the true mental forces, which are transmitted via linear elemental etheric impulses. -This concept leads to a new model for a number of metaphysical themes that are currently unexplained, such as psychic phenomena, spirituality, and others. -The idea here is that one's brain activity resonates, etherically and "aurically," beyond the body, into a surrounding macrocosm of ultimately-etheric electromagnetic forces, and the latter can transmit the energy patterns emanating from one cognitive entity to another one. -"Consciousnes" would represent an entity's state of etheric energization, in which a cognitive entity maintains his own unique self-resonating etheric energy field. -Surrounding macrocosmic magnetic forces can help maintain such microcosmic cognitive fields by also resonating with it, perhaps via piezo mechanisms and the like. -The basic idea is that of the uniformity and universality of an underlying elemental etheric energy matrix, with all other bodies and fields in resonance with it.

I think you're making things more complicated than they need to be. In my scenario, the presence of consciousness in the space-time universe implies conscious is a fundamental feature of the cosmos -- again, something that is not inconsistent with QM and something some physicists have suggested themselves.

In short, the scholastics who posited the the doctrine of divine simplicity in the Middle Ages were not idiots. HexHammer, on the other hand....


P.S. You'er the first person I've seen in this forum to take metaphysics seriously. Quite refreshing. Thank you.

[uwot]

In case there are any posters still interested in discussing any part of my Model, maybe we can sidestep HexHammer.

I did that ages ago. The IQ of the average poster has been 11 points higher ever since.

I would be open to meaningful debate about any of it.

You say you are an aether theorist; as it happens, that is pretty much the default setting of physicists, as Noble Prize winning smartie-pants Robert Laughlin explains:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum…The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

Even Noble Laureate, Steve Weinberg, a man with a profound distaste for philosophy admits that most physicists are 'rough and ready' realists. Basically, when they talk about Quantum Fields, they generally believe they exist in a physical sense and have 'mechanical' properties. Matter and energy are commonly supposed to be something akin to knots and ripples in such mechanical fields, an idea that goes back at least as far as Lord Kelvin (as in the temperature scale). These days the words used are excitations and perturbations (I'm sure there are others), but the broad idea is that there are 'fields' that can be warped, twisted, shaken and stirred to create matter/energy. In Einstein's day, the thinking was 'condensations': you can read about it here: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... eiden.html
Greylorn Ell makes the point that:

...half-thought-out and ill-explained metaphysical schemes are a dime a thousand,

Not many have consciousness so casually thrown in, smacks a bit of panpsychism, but who knows?

and impossible to fully describe on any blog.

You clearly haven't seen this one, Greylorn: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/ (Although, to be fair, it's a work in progress.)

You'll need to write a book, like I did.

Greylorn

Yeah. Respect for that.

[The Inglorious One]

If your theory of consciousness is right, it is like science climbing to the top of the mountain only to find the theologian waiting for him.

BTW, Your theory sounds a lot like one recently posited about the universe not having a beginning.

[Greylorn Ell]

In case there are any posters still interested in discussing any part of my Model, maybe we can sidestep HexHammer. I would be open to meaningful debate about any of it.

Michael,
You might begin by explaining your ideas about how the ether originates. Then, what are its physical properties?
Greylorn

[Michael MD]

There have been too many random questions to answer systematically, but I'll try to give my take on the gist of most of them in a single breakdown of details of my aether model.

The origin of the universe must be distinguished from subsequent sub-processes leading to our universe (I believe we are in one universe but there are more than one. (What physicists call "Dark Energy" refers to observations of celestial bodies in the farthest regions of our universe, which have been found to be accelerating apart faster than expected, which physicists are explaining by postulating the existence of a "dark energy," a negative kind of energy "which repels bodies rather than attracting them".) -However, I believe those bodies are reacting to the ever-closer approach of another, younger, "stronger," universe, which is pulling on the bodies. -This would be similar to the cases where galaxies are seen to collide.

Getting back to the aether model of our universe's origin and of subsequent "sub" processes, leading to the aether: as I described in my earlier posts, initially, before the first appearances of forces, space was self-compatible, such that point-localities were oscillating with respect to each other. Then, "Yin and Yang" type point-pairs underwent oscillational fatigue, breaking the perfect symmetry of original space. The "point" pairs were directionally vibrational (derived from the oscillational), and they then formed reonances with each other in space (a process in which the vibrations extended outwardly widely enough to form loose connections (not "fixed" connections) between them, analogous to their having "nodes" which can interact with each other.) This in turn led them to form transient magnetic entrainments in space, which then combined into foci of energy characterized by super-intense energics and etherically-super-refined fluxes, within which cognitive consciousness, as well as biological life, could appear. -The overall picture is of a non-homogeneous space within which aetheric energic processes took place.

In our earth setting, the underlying vibratory aetheric energy is unappreciated. We can't detect the aether. What we detect are quantum forces which are spin-vector forces superimposed upon the underlying aetheric cosmic forces which mediate cosmic phenomena like gravitation, time and others.

The only way to understand those phenomena would be by appreciating the aether's cosmic role.

Physics took a wrong turn after the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) in 1887, which reportedly disproved the existence of an aether. However, I believe the MMX used a false assumption as its basic criterion. It was assumed that any kind of aether would behave inertially with respect to earth's movements through it, producing a dragging "wind" effect, which should be detectable using the optical refractive measurements in the MMX. -However, if the aether is non-inertial, the basic criterion for the MMX would not apply, the MMX would be cosmologically irrelevant, and the former concept of a universal aether which transmits forces would still be viable. -I believe that elemental aether units exist inside bodies such as earth, that identical elemental aether units exist in the space between bodies, and that the aether thus would interactively, or resonationally, tend to "follow" the body as it moves through space, non-inertially. (This "auric" aspect of the aether also provides a simple model for gravitation.)

In 1935, Einstein took note of the early evidence of the phenomenon of action-at-a-distance (which physicists now refer to as "quantum entanglement,") and because of it, he questioned the very foundation of quantum mechanics, an opinion he never really changed. -In later years, Einstein occasionally used the term "aether," but never incorporated it into his relativity theories.

In my model, so-called quantum entanglement represents radiated packets of aether energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental aether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units kinetically "walled off" like cool "arms" of a quiet purring aether mechanism which can turn itself on and off, by itself, any time.

My aether model has been derived from codebreaking an obscure source of information in a historical Document.

[uwot]

However, I believe those bodies are reacting to the ever-closer approach of another, younger, "stronger," universe, which is pulling on the bodies.

Well, the thing is that in every direction you look, galaxies at a given distance are accelerating at the same rate. For your hypothesis to be true, there needs to be a universe that is younger and stronger by the same factor in every direction and for the Earth to be in the centre of 'our' universe. I'm not an expert on probability, but I imagine the odds aren't great.

[Michael MD]

uwot,

I didn't go into the full extent of what I have derived from the cryptographic study I mentioned.

Your criticism citing observations of galaxies of course would be coming from our conventional theories, based on quantum physics and empirical observations, and the prevalent idea that the world has come out of a Big Bang due to a series of completely random events. -The former concept of creational management of the cosmos doesn't enter in, as much, any more.

I believe there never was any random "Big Bang." -Once consciousness appeared, along the lines of the model I gave in my last Post, it led to creational psychic energic management of cosmic systems, in order to optimize conditions for the existence of the entities within.

In the case of our observable universe (once conscious manipulation of aetheric forces existed), there was an initial non-random event, involving sending a judicious psychic projection of a force-field comprising the smallest (and thus the fastest) aetheric units, which you could refer to as "electronics." These acted linearly, energically, and formed magnetic entrainments of the electronics, which in turn formed larger aggregational units, which could be called "neutronics" and "protonics," which, being larger, were slower, and sat inside the nuclei of nascent atoms, with the electronics outside. This in turn led to larger and larger cosmic systems, up to the celestial bodies we have now.

As far as your criticism as to how one should then view the behavior of systems like galaxies, one would have to surmise that our observation of mostly- consistent orderliness in their cosmic behavior would reflect ongoing management by aether-energic-technological extraterrestrials. -With that kind of perspective, it's presumptuous for us to break down various events in the cosmos and try to reduce them into our earthly rationales of "random causation."