Wednesday, January 4, 2012

The Unified Field

Last night a number of edgy, new physics, new thought ideas all came together in a flash in this unlimited mindspace of which I'm fortunate enough to to be a custodian.  The ideas are:

  1. Implicate Order 
  2. Parallel Universes
  3. Multiple Universes
  4. Particle Physics
  5. Quantum Mechanics
  6. Unified Field Theory
  7. String Theory 
  8. Instant Manifestation
  9. Law of Attraction
  10. Zero Point Energy
I have grave doubts that I'll be able to explain this remarkable conjunction, but as usual I'm compelled to try. If I get this right, you're going to have an entirely new truth of the space you inhabit by the end of the article!

Let's start with Zero Point Energy.  Most Quantum Mechanical and Cosmological explanations of the Universe come with the concept that at every point in the Universe there is infinite energy.  Normally that's a stopper for most attempts at formulating a Unified Field Theory.  To hear them tell it, it just won't do to have all that energy hanging around at every infinitesimal point.  All those infinities tend to clog up your equations  kind of like division by zero does.  In fact, you could make a case for "x / 0 = infinity" if one plays around with Limits the way one does in Calculus. That makes zero look like the flip side of infinity, but that's another story.

The stumbling block is that this quandary is based on the assumption that all dimensions are not created equal.  Because of the evidence of our senses, we harbor the unconscious belief that the three dimensions (and to a lesser extent, the fourth dimension of Time) that we're most familiar with are rigid, implying that the seven other dimensions that show up in most versions of String Theory have to be wrapped up in themselves at every point in spacetime .

What if they're not?  What if all those dimensions have an equal claim on what we perceive as "every point in spacetime"?  If all these dimensions spread out infinitely from every point, then what does that say about the "shape of things"?  From a three dimensional point of view that looks like multiple universes expanded outward from every point all the time, Kind of makes the Big Bang look like a small hiccough compared to what's going on at every moment everywhere, doesn't it?  If those dimensions are spreading out from everywhere, then "we" are spreading out in them!

How can this be? We appear to each be planted solidly in this 3-4D space. But remember, all those dimensions, all those "I"s are not required to squeeze into "this space", which we are absolutely certain, so certain, in fact, that we never give it a second thought, is the entirety of our world..

The answer is that at any instant, any billionth of a nanosecond, we are making choices.  Each of those choices takes our awareness down a particular path through at least eleven dimensions.  Just our awareness.  The "objects of awareness" that we find here now, including our "selves" and our bodies can be seen as versions appearing in this version  of the universe perceived by that awareness.

Using our zero/infinity axiom, we can say that if we demand that a certain set of three dimensions be primary, be "real", then the other dimensions would appear to fold in on themselves to accommodate the three filling all of space, whereas if we give all dimensions equal rights, then they all spread out infinitely from every point.

Another implication of this is that it is impossible to determine objectively whether one's awareness is "choosing" everything in its path moment to moment, or "creating" it, because from the  3-4D point of view there is no way to prove (or even test) that the universes resulting from a different choice exist at all.

Let's try an example. You're driving in your car. Up ahead the road ends at a "T".  You have a choice.  You can turn left or you can turn right.  Whichever way you go, the Universe will have a different history if you go left that it will if you turn right.  But even before that, the Universe will have a different history depending on whether you LOOKED left or right first when you pulled up to the intersection.  In fact it will be branch at the point where you THOUGHT whether to look left or right first.  And so on ad infinitum.  So it makes just as much sense to say that you created the particular universe that resulted from your choice as it does to say that you chose it.

If you're interested in this topic and would like to go deeper, here is the source of the term "Implicate Order".

Friday, December 23, 2011

A quick comment that I posted on another forum. Edited :


Folks, there's a bit of confusion that comes from taking the Buddhist statement "Desire is the cause of suffering" that at face value without going a little deeper into the substrate of consciousness.

In Buddhism, Advaita, and several others the point is not that the solution is to get rid of all desires. There is nothing wrong with having desires, setting goals, and striving to achieve them. The problem comes when you invest your emotional energy (your heart) in them. Then if you don't get what you want to have or achieve, you allow that to damage your self esteem--actually "self valuation" would be the better term. That's suffering. Once you understand that, any "failure" does not make you have less value. Once you see that, your "value" can go infinite, because you're the only one that can set it.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Anybody Home in this Body? Light Humor

Letting go more and more.
Now notice pretty quickly when I go off track.

Found an enormous ball of fear identity.
It was in storage.
Its story was that, "There is never enough!  What if the whole thing crashes and burns? That could happen any second!"  Etc., etc.  Seeing it like that I was happy to let it go, to allow it to dis-create

But the thing is, it was pretty central to the personality, so seeing it as "Not I" was pretty significant.

Big Surprise! Big Insight! Big Realization!

"Hey! I can relax now."  And I did!  Really did.  Really!

The (now-blob-like and somewhat comic) fear floated off into the sky.  And there were no regrets!

So here I am. Now.
Poised for another thought to bubble up.
I mean one that has somewhere to go.
Not like these dead ends.
So far....

Wait.  Not every idea has to be significant, world-shattering, new dimensions blooming every second!
Some can be ordinary.  Like "We're out of toilet paper!"
But the Sheer Improbability of There Being Anything At All overwhelms even that!

Then it's like the World has sprung an Improbability Leak!  Gallons of Improbability pouring into our Safe and Predictable World!  This could change everything!

Externally I'm having some balance issues and competence in some areas appears to be starting to drift away....

Done.



Saturday, November 26, 2011

All The Big Questions

The present appearance is of a version of the "I AM" experience called [your name] experiencing the words apparently written here and forming the individual ideas to which those words point into a larger idea.  Whew!  That is to say, "complex idea in a complex sentence."  Let's try to look that closely at "your" experience

Ask, "In this moment, what can be known to be undeniably true, eternal, indisputable?"  This "self" that "you" attach "your" name to?  Is it there when "you" sleep?  Doesn't seem to be, does it?  It seems to reassemble itself when "you" wake up in the morning.  What does that say about the reality of this "self"?  What if it's just a bunch of ideas clustered around this Bare Attention, this Naked Experience, this I AM?  Where are those ideas of self without the experiencing I AM?  Where is anything without THAT?

I AM, therefore, must be primary (philosophers call this "a priori").  Can it be separated from what it experiences?  Oops!  Any idea of I AM cannot be I AM, can it?  An idea cannot be the thing itself, any more than road signs can be the roads they point to.  You can't eat the idea of an apple.  So are ideas something or nothing?

What if all that exists is I AM?  Think of the implications!  If things and ideas have no intrinsic reality, then if we discount all objects of experience, the how is "your" experience of I AM different from "mine"?