GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:Cosmology is speculative at its core.

Big Bang cosmology is 80% math and 20% actual science. It is also patently stupid.

You wrote at the present end of the "Causality and Acausality" thread;

Arguing for acausal events is the same as arguing for creation ex nihilo. One cannot lucidly argue with anyone who wants to adopt an idea like that.

I agree that creation ex nihilo is totaly absurd. So, if you think the big bang model (including the big crunch half-cycle, as I see it) is "patently stupid", what model, in your mind would be an intelligent possibility, and where did it all come from if not the crunch half of the whole bang/crunch cycle?

(Btw, addressing the question of un-caused cause... Consciousness is such... but not itself an "event" as it is Creator transcending creation.)

But Mikiel, my mystic visions leads me to think there are at least 5 or 6 dimensions. Which is to say, there is at least one more inner (probably two) and an outer dimension.

Matter might be generated from an underlying etheric substance which can give rise to particles in an ongoing and ever increasing chain, which will at some point again dissolve. It is not different than your cyclic vision, but does not involve some of the more spectacular and speculative aspects of Big Bang.

Iolaus wrote:But Mikiel, my mystic visions leads me to think there are at least 5 or 6 dimensions. Which is to say, there is at least one more inner (probably two) and an outer dimension.

Matter might be generated from an underlying etheric substance which can give rise to particles in an ongoing and ever increasing chain, which will at some point again dissolve. It is not different than your cyclic vision, but does not involve some of the more spectacular and speculative aspects of Big Bang.

String theory posits nine spatial dimensions, the three big ones we know and six hypothetical extremely tiny ones.

The Higgs field is a hypothesized etherlike field permeating all of space. It is separate from string theory, but the interesting thing about the Higgs field is that motion through it gives a particle its mass, which is a measure of matter. A photon will traverse the Higgs field unchanged; therefore, it has no mass. It exists purely as energy in the mass-energy duality.

Iolaus wrote:But Mikiel, my mystic visions leads me to think there are at least 5 or 6 dimensions. Which is to say, there is at least one more inner (probably two) and an outer dimension.

Matter might be generated from an underlying etheric substance which can give rise to particles in an ongoing and ever increasing chain, which will at some point again dissolve. It is not different than your cyclic vision, but does not involve some of the more spectacular and speculative aspects of Big Bang.

The concept of "dimensions" leaves a lot of room for mystic vision and scientifc speculatiuon... brainstorming/theory.
Like I said the "11 dimensions" in string/M-theory are way "imaginative" with no observable referents at all beyond the well known big three spacial and "time" as event duration, as for instance a component of velocity.
I see consciousness itself as the supreme unifying dimension... awareness itself on all scales... transcending content, *what One is aware of.*
Then intention enters as the first dimension of manifestation, as One drops from total transcendence into motivation/intention to create.
I've noticed this subtle shift consistently in my nearly four decades of daily meditation. As I come out of meditation, I am conscious of my 'Creator-hood', the power of intention to manifest action and move from pure Being into doing.

I'm interested in your description of the dimensions you see, mystically.
PS: On the physical "plane", all there is always has been and always will be. There never was or can be any creation "out of nothing."
Like we learned in HS science, "Neither matter nor energy is created or destroyed but only changes form." Still true.

(I'll be gone again for a week or so.)

Iolaus,
As I said, 'I'm interested in your description of the dimensions you see, mystically."
Dunno if you missed it or chose not to answer.

Mikiel!

Hope you are here this weekend:

As I said, 'I'm interested in your description of the dimensions you see, mystically."
Dunno if you missed it or chose not to answer.

Yes, I missed it.
I do not really get mystic visions, in the way you seem to describe, rather I ponder things deeply and get spatial ideas or pictures.

Some of these ideas are my own such thoughts, and some of it comes from reading, naturally I decide what I think is plausible. Some of mainstream science, when I try to read it, does not seem plausible to me, and I get frustrated and stop. Books like the Dancing Wu Li Masters come to mind. Hated it.

I am interested in M theory, or string theory, for one reason - that they propose that at bottom of all this matter is one fundamental substance, nondifferentiated, which simply vibrates in different rates, waves, or patterns, and creates all things.

I'm now thinking that much of modern science, cosmology and particle physics, quantum physics is speculation and imagination.

I do not think time is a dimension.

I think that the Planck length is probably the divider into the next dimension. And there is at least one smaller dimension than it, simply because there must be at least one more, to account for things. Planck isn't small enough. But I suspect that perhaps one reason for quantum weirdness is that they have entered another dimension and don't understand it, or can't properly track it. Not being able to properly track it, they jump to false conclusions.

All control and consciousness comes not from some huge God without, but from the most subtle. The very most subtle, etheric place of all is the realm of God and the intention of creation. It must be so - that which controls or creates must have access to everything, must be inside everything. In order to be inside it must be the smallest, the most etheric, the most penetrative. This is the innermost dimension.

Now, suppose that the Planck length is another dimension. And suppose that certain spiritual events are also of another dimension. What if they are one and the same? What if things like our personal consciousness, and the esp between minds, uses the ether as its medium to travel through? Just as we, with our ordinary 5 bodily senses perceive the 3 most popular dimensions most easily but we are still spiritual beings while perceiving this 3D reality, why shouldn't the tiny, inner physical dimensions be the very same place in which certain spiritual perceptions take place? This would give rise to the intuitive feeling that people have that spiritual vision is a kind of 'sight' just like our regular sight.

In other words, I am tying them together: a smaller inner physical dimension in which most people have very little ability to 'see' but some can and it is this very small, subtle, penetrative physical dimension which accounts for things like esp or the consciousness leaving the body at death, or subatomic particles.

PS- Oh, and, of course, it is also the realm of the mystics, which is why they are so confident and tend to understand one another so well. It doesn't mean no mystic can be wrong, or all mystical insight is correct, but there is a very definite pattern.

Iolaus,
Yup, I'm back for the weekend. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

You opened with:

I do not really get mystic visions, in the way you seem to describe, rather I ponder things deeply and get spatial ideas or pictures.

My actual visions come from a trance state in which all personal thinking processes are suspended.
Then I think them over in a contemplative way, similarly, I suspect to your deep pondering.

I am interested in M theory, or string theory, for one reason - that they propose that at bottom of all this matter is one fundamental substance, nondifferentiated, which simply vibrates in different rates, waves, or patterns, and creates all things.

I've been a severe critic of string/M-theory since its invention and through all its permutations. It is more like fantasy/ sci-fi than science, and its elaborate math (without observable referrents) does nothing to redeam it. It is presently losing favor in the serious scientific community... not that popularity has a damned thing to to with scientific validy, but I'm happy that it is losing its influence.

I think consciouness itself will prove to be the Mystery Factor underlying the Big Four forces, the Holy Grail, The Grand Unifying Theory. As I said above, the first "step down" from transcendental consciousness is the "causal dimension" in which intention begins to operate toward manifestation/creation.

I do not think time is a dimension.

Agreed. Just the concept of event duration. Very useful tho, as, for instance a compenent of velocity or everyday synchroniizing of schedules.

I think that the Planck length is probably the divider into the next dimension. And there is at least one smaller dimension than it, simply because there must be at least one more, to account for things. Planck isn't small enough. But I suspect that perhaps one reason for quantum weirdness is that they have entered another dimension and don't understand it, or can't properly track it. Not being able to properly track it, they jump to false conclusions.

I'm not sure why we must know how small our units of measure can be. Like the "subatomic particle" game or description of the size of "strings"... what's the point/ necessity? It's like dividing a distance in half ad infinitum. Always remains some nominal micro-length.
Consciousness, on the other hand is not in the realm of measurement (the manifest realm.)
It holds the secrets, I think, to all four forces and to "stuff" like quantum particle entanglement.

I'll be back to carry on this afternoon.
Good to find a respectful conversation, for a change. (I know... I too can be quite harsh when met with harshness... but I am not first with it... unless confronting abject stupidity like "Creationism" and the "6000 yr old Earth" an equally absurd beliefs.)

Bump.
Iolaus, you are the only one here besides the by-the-book stuffed shirts in dialogue with me on cosmology.
Give up or what? Just a note on your reason for quitting would be appreciated.

Mostly here it is just a blatent 'fuck you' as a stamp on the end of dialogue... as per the Three Founders. (When they know they are out of their league on "enlightenemt" for instance.)

This is all in good humor, BTW... Tho words on screen can not convey how this all tickles me.
Peace.
m

Mikiel,

I just didn't know what to say. I don't perhaps really know all that much abut M theory and am suspicious of theories which rely on mathematical models without empirics. The part I like about it is the one substance or energy from which the duality of positive/negative is generated and from which all else flows, appearing as many, many different things but having an identical root.

I don't know how consciousness might relate to the four forces. Ultimately, consciousness is the causal agent, but I don't understand, especially electromagnetism, to have a feel for it. Nonetheless I do find it very interesting and await further developments as to understanding them. I hope there will be new ideas and breakthroughs, which in fact I am sure are already in existence, but the academic institutions, if they have indeed gone off on the wrong track as LaViolette thinks they have, will resist the corrections.

Ego.

I'm not sure why we must know how small our units of measure can be. Like the "subatomic particle" game or description of the size of "strings"... what's the point/ necessity? It's like dividing a distance in half ad infinitum. Always remains some nominal micro-length.

I find the proposition that we have more dimensions extremely probable, and the difficulty of understanding the behaviors of quantum particles indicates that Planck length may actually be the gateway into another, smaller, inner dimension. Furthermore, you say you want to converse, yet you passed over what I thought was my main or most interesting point. That being, that these other dimensions, while not be directly observable by us, are still a part of the entire picture, and that they may contain subtle energies that have been called spiritual simply because people couldn't see their origin or track them reliably.

How do you account for esp?

Iolaus:

I find the proposition that we have more dimensions extremely probable, and the difficulty of understanding the behaviors of quantum particles indicates that Planck length may actually be the gateway into another, smaller, inner dimension. Furthermore, you say you want to converse, yet you passed over what I thought was my main or most interesting point. That being, that these other dimensions, while not be directly observable by us, are still a part of the entire picture, and that they may contain subtle energies that have been called spiritual simply because people couldn't see their origin or track them reliably.

How do you account for esp?

What do you mean by "these other dimensions?" This was the intent of my original question to you above (9/1):

As I said, 'I'm interested in your description of the dimensions you see, mystically."

Just finding (or proposing) smaller scales in the 3-D world does not define other dimensions. Consciousness as The Prime Creative Force is a dimension presently beyond the realm of science. But study of Quantum Physics is approaching, as in the *very mysterious* partical entanglement experiments... well validated.

Consciousness, as The Omnipresent Intellgence (God) will answer the mystery of all "action at a distance" whether the above bond between entangled particles, how gravity works as a constant across the whole cosmos, and how ESP works.

The latter, for me is experienced as being "of one mind" with another person, very temporarily and relative to specific content...

...Like the images I sent my Dad in our telepathy experiments (see "My Journey to Awakening" at http://www.consciousunity.org/MyJourneytoAwakening.html )
I could "feel" when he had "tuned into my imaging center." Kind of "spooky" actually to "feel" someone "inside my mind."

Same when I experienced the pain in my stomach as coming from my oldest son... at a great distance... and came out of the wilderness (literally) to find him hospitalized with a peptic ulcer.

Mikiel,

What do you mean by "these other dimensions?"

The ones that I propose may exist.

Just finding (or proposing) smaller scales in the 3-D world does not define other dimensions.

Yes, that is true. I put together, though, the posited extra dimensions of string theory, and the smallness and weirdness of quantum behaviors, and thought that the Planck length is a logical divisionary point wherein an inwardly curving 4th dimension might begin. And thought about what it might mean from a perceptive point of view, and also from the general ideas circulating about subtle energies and the ancient ether idea, to which I subscribe, whose operation would be perhaps in that small dimension, accounting for the difficulty in our apprehending how it works.

Same when I experienced the pain in my stomach as coming from my oldest son.

Yes, this is the kind of thing I mean. We cannot perceive things like the full electromagnetic spectrum directly, nor can we perceive the waveform that allows this mind to mind communication - but it must exist.