I could write a course outline like that.

1. The happy marriage of electron to proton.
2. The love triangle: Mr. Neutron enters the nuclear family.
3. Birth of a molecule.
4. Ionic electrons: The tiny thing floating around after the circumcision of young molecules.
5. Photon: Electron paths enter grade 1, and learn to read, write, and emit photons.
6. The splitting of DNA: What lawyers they hire for the divorce and who gets to keep the house (the host cell).
7. Oxidization: Molecules and atoms at work.
8. Gamma particle emission: Epiphany or religious ecstasy of a nucleus. "Rapturing."
9. High heat and pressure: The recipe for an atomic schizophrenic breakdown.
10. The primordeal soup: the first family reunion on a planet.
11. Absolute zero: The death of matter. No matter what, I learned in my alma mater, matter does not rematerialize before it could unmatterhorn gestallt.

I hate this anthropomorphizing of natural processes, "deah of a star", "monster of the galaxy", etc. Blow me instead.

Well, for me, the ideas of the quantum field and the consciousness of Yesod sure seem to have a lot of commonalities.

What I find truly interesting is that the idea of the consciousness of Yesod was an idea of pure thought (i.e. no physical experimentation or observed evidence)

Yet, now, thousands of years later, here we are talking about a quantum field whose properties are indeed being observed and mathematically described in ways that do indeed have many commonalities with these ancient ideas of consciousness.

It's like modern science has actually, "physically" recognized the interface between Malkuth and Yesod. The quantum field gives rise to all that is physical. Yet it sure appears that potentiality exists within the quantum field that is not becoming manifest in the physical world.

Moroever, the quantum field shows every indications that it's chomping at the bit to become physically manifest (i.e. virtual particles are popping into and out of existence all the time).

So in a sense, everything is containted within the quantum field (the unlimited consciousness of Yesod), but certain things are required for those things to become manifest in the physical world (the consciousness of malkuth)

Are these two fields (the field of the physical and the field of potential) genuinely just to different "fields of conciousness"?

It's an interesting thought. And in a sense this thought existed in Yesod just a moment ago, yet now it has become manifest in Malkuth via the words on your monitor screen.

It's returning to Yesod as you read it and it once again becomes pure thought within your consciousness.

Yes. The unified field contains "the mind." The mind contains the body.

I do not see the mind attached to/dependent on "body."

I see the body a manifestation of the mind.

And the mind, is a manifestation of the "I" or self.

Everything arises from self.

I'll pass.

Yes, I agree with that much.

I just don't see any necessity for postulating an extra "container" (i.e. "unified field") for anything. As I see it, all three of those things (body,mind, "I") can stand just exactly as described without any additional dependency.

The field is as necessary as the body and mind. You could not operate in this physical universe if you did not have a physical body. You could not contain your space-time environment and mind if it were not for the unified field.

Perhaps the unified field is the mind. But to me it makes sense that the workings of the mind are held together via the field. Unified.

By the way, it is an egg shaped field of energy.

How about this description:


What is a unified field?

A unified field is a field in which all energies are in a state of unification.

It is a field in which magnetic, electrical, gravitational, strong/weak nuclear, thermal, acoustical and other radiative attributes are in a state of mathematical, geometric and harmonic unification.

They are not de-coupled, separate or broken down into radiative, attributes. It is based on Einstein's modified equation E=mc 2 0c 2 based on E=mc 2 where 0 is the consciousness constant. (I don't know how to make the 0 with a line through it, but it has a line through it.

It means a shift from Special Relativity to General Relativity by accelerating energy to reach the Bohm Superquantum-Relativistic Potential continuum, also known as the intelligent field that interpenetrates the universe.

So if I understand correctly, the structure of the mind and the spacetime environment are such that they need to be “held together” but the structure of the unified field has no such requirement – it holds itself together?

What I’m getting at is, if the “I” creates this field to hold all this stuff together and the field itself does not need to be held together, than why does it not just create the mind so that it holds together all by itself, just as the field does?

But we may be just stumbling over semantics here.

If we compare the mind/field relationship to a computer/case relationship, then I can see what you mean.

Then the only real difference would be a semantic one - whether one considers the case to be an integral part of the computer (case+contents=computer/mind), or separate from the computer (case=field, contents=mind). Does that make sense?

I don't claim to know the details. I describe the field above. It is an energy field in which the mind functions. It is like a the body of a mini universe. The field repels many non-harmonic intruding energies.

That needs a lot more context for me to grasp. Too much information with too few reference points that I understand.

Regarding the "zero with a line through it". If you mean a horizontal line as opposed to a diagonal or vertical line, then that is the greek symbol "theta". And it is interesting to note that it is used here in virtually the exactly the same way it is used in Scientology - a symbol for the "I" or "self". And I gotta say I'm seeing some very intersting parallels between what you've described about Bohm's theory, and the theories on which Scientology is based.

Just an observation.

Interesting. I don't understand it all myself, but it is the trail I am following.

Okay I have to write this concept now before it is lost again.

I've been thinking about Bohm's theory of the superquantum potential and how an electron is "everywhere" and when you think about the idea of the "non-local" quality of this superquantum potential and how a particle has no real mass or measurement.

(This said particle or "electron" would surround us everywhere.)

It is a mind bending concept to grasp involving/concerning the non-existence of time and space.

I think of two sides to the universe, one arises from the other. In relation to me, all things arise from within that which is me; and that which is me is both inside and outside of "me" (the body)-- (everywhere or non-local)

The physical body is what you might describe as the final manifestation or the "bottom" of the manifested phenomenon that we call 'reality.'

Everything exists HERE NOW.

Now this is where I lose my train of concentration because it is beyond the capacity of my brain to make sense of that information.

I'm really not crazy.

Not at all. I find that it is sort of like what you get when you wave a pencil up and down in front of a TV or a screen. Reality (meaning what most people agree as it is) is the image resulting from the localized vibration of the gridwork of energy that is the foundation upon which everything sits. As the independant and aware fibers of light vibrate to their resonant frequencies, an image is reflected, or rather; created on the vibrations. That is reality. Sort of. There is the now and the infinite, but each is on a different part of the whole structure. And from what I understand, with each choice made in life, another reality of anti-matter is created from each choice of each consciousness. It's just pretty hard to put into words.

Ah yes, the cassette tape drive, CLoad...I remember it well.
My first computer was put together in the early 70's...it was steam powered. I also messed with the TRS-80 and then there was the VIC-16 and my 800XL with my wonderful $500 5"1/4 floppy drive, not to mention the 8" floppy disks at work and omg im going off here the PDP-11 and VAX...yow! LOL

Gee Mirror, he looks just like you! LOL

Wow I haven't even seen or heard of all of those computers!! I would like to go to a computer museum if there is such a thing.

Are we even talking about the same premise here? That there is no such thing as disorder, at all, ever? That it all follows from order that is not yet perceived? And not simply 'order principles', which science as a whole strongly suggests - but an actual not-perceived ordered system?

There is science, there is philosophy, and there is pure unadulterated, unapologetic speculation. I have nothing against the latter - without it, we would have no progress.




For you, me, and other reasonable people, "What if?" is exactly what it is - and a fine "What if?" it is. For some (mostly amongst the science illiterate) this premise is considered 'truth' and also 'an established scientific fact'. And its in that context that certain ideas are arranged very conveniently.

Of course not, and I didn't suggest that it was. Its not even specific enough to qualify as either.



I'm sorry, what exactly are respected scientists considering? Exactly which idea that falls under the unfortunately umbrella term 'holographic universe'? There is no such thing as "the one true idea" of a holographic structure to this universe. There are many separate ideas, and yes some of those ideas have some scientific merit. For example, apparently some consider the idea that an electron is not located in one 'place' to be a 'holographic universe' type idea. It has been accepted by many for a long time that the best we can do in locating an electron is describe its location with an equation that gives its probability as a function of space.

Apparently the idea that information is encoded in fields is given this same label, even though we've been encoding information in fields for quite a while.... I got a device for this purpose at Best Buy for $79 a while back.

Other ideas are fine for speculation, but in the context of scientific evidence and accepted ideas of scientists, they are indeed laughable. Such as the idea that a single electron contains all the information contained in the entire universe.

I'm not saying that the idea itself is laughable, but the idea that this particular permutation of the 'holographic universe' idea is supported by science is laughable. I apologize for the convoluted grammar, its the best I can do. These are completely different. Most of what is 'known' (so called) by modern physicists would have been laughable (and insane) to 19th centaury scientists.