You are correct Farsight all particles do exhibit wave/particle duality. Even my proton/neutron description can be collapsed into a 2 dimensional wave.
It does seem that some " particles " exhibit more of a 3 dimensionality ( protons/neutrons ) while other " particles display more of a 2 dimensionality ( photons/electrons ) and indeed science does make a distiction between hadrons and leptons.
This is his theory which while a bit long is very good. I'm sure you'll find it interesting. He has even offered an updated book free to members who are interested.
I am still thinking as to whether I do have a mind as a separate entity or is it a projection of my brain, some neurons that combine in a certain way to give the illusion of the mind.
We do have consciousness that for sure, but is it unique to humans? Can a microorganism have consciousness? Since they do not have brains, would they have a mind?
Would a ToE (they way I see it ie unification of the grand with the quantum) actually require a mind and spirituality? Can gravity be affected by mind?
A quick reply to this, Dipayan, is found when considering that everything in our universe is made out of mass and energy and that the two are linked.
If you replace the word energy with the word mind it becomes possible to see that the mind is already part of the matter. The object of mind would then cease to be an object by itself but a natural component, a natural state, of matter/energy. I used this example before, the word family is something we all consider real, but it isn't real as a separate independent thing; it is based on the parts.
Gravity can according to me indeed be affected by mind on the conditions that you have a lot of it. And that all of those minds also need to be truly focused on a commonly accepted state, not only be in harmony about that, but retain that harmony all the way up to the momentum at which change of gravity is possible. Will that happen? Most likely not, because if gravity is a condition of mind (or energy/mass) it has already achieved the condition of today, so it is not just creating a condition, but changing a condition; and as we all know changing conditions is pretty tough.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I thought I saw a different picture of you, Pat? Are you sure this is you?
Either way, the question is not whether we are thinking and then find a double layer within our thinking. The question is whether thinking is a separate part all to itself or if thinking — having a mind — automatically exists with being energized in this materialized universe.
As you know, I normally take in the position that separation is the basics of our universe after which a subsequent trying to get together follows. So, what may be interesting is that I consider this a case where one and the same 'thing' is taken apart and seen as two things. Bodies and minds are not separate, rather these parts arrive at the same time, together as one, because they are one. Humans, by pronouncing various ideas, have come up with a lot of words and because of that we are capable to articulate a lot more than what is really out there.
Many describe us, for instance, as having souls, but to be honest, I don't see anything separate in me that I can call soul. Naturally, I use the word sometimes too, but I really describe then a more profound state of my personal being that goes further than my daily mood. Yet, I do not consider it a separate part, just like I would not consider my daily mood a separate part of me.
Having a mind is of course a description that has a few flaws of its own. Though rocks are energized, it would be difficult to state that rocks have a mind of their own. It is definitively impossible to figure out if there is a mind to a rock. Still, some people living close to nature would say so, and some ancient beliefs also mention this state of everything being spirited. Therefore, the connection between being energized in a certain way, and having a certain state of mind can be viewed as belonging to the same family of description: energy = a state. Separation of body and mind would then be a trick that the human brain has played on us, or it arrived with having such a large variety of ideas we didn't understand up from down anymore. When following this train of thought, that state of being mindfully energized would then be quite simple for a rock, not so simple for everything else.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I think the human being is one person with three major dynamics which interplay. All 3 are necessary to be fully human. A person in a vegetative state lacks one of those states. A person who lacks emotion also can be said to be lacking. Additionally a quadriplegic is again lacking in the total human dynamics of mind, body and spirit.
As you know my An Idea relies heavily on the concept of trinity, which is far more complicated and dynamic than singularity.
A wise person once said to be happy one should have, something to do, someone to love, and something to look forward to. When body, emotion and mind are in such a state then all 3 forcesw are happy which makes up 1 happy camper.
It's not a coincidence that there are 3 quarks which make up the proton/neutron. each quark is necessary to make up the one particle. You need time ( mind ) space ( body ) and motion, to make up the universe.
Thanks, Pat, good to read you belong to the group of happy campers.
Words are words, and I pay great attention to words because they can deliver so much, but sometimes too much as well. I have no problem pronouncing I have a soul, or a mood, or a mind, because they are aspects of who I am (next to several other aspects). To consider them aspects is the appropriate way, according to me, just like quarks are part-icles within a whole, and not independent states. If we take the peculiarities of words out of this equation it may be that we are agreeing here, Pat, though the crux of the matter is then actually not yet addressed.
The larger question this points to is, of course, the question how to interpret the word god. Can we consider something outside ourselves the entity god, or is god rather the specific state and outcome under which we all have our place — without an additional entity next to it?
Religion cannot answer that question, but in a personal belief we can make a choice — if so desired — between these two options. I definitively go for the state, without considering myself that much more than any other living being, in which the entity next to our outcome is either not there or is of a lesser stature than what is captured within matter. Of course, I pronounce this as a materialized person (and know that others can also only pronounce their beliefs while being materialized persons). I cannot be certain, nor can anyone else, and therefore I call it a belief.
The clockwork you mentioned — mechanical and simplistic in explanation — is on some level all that is required. Yet I call the clockwork simplistic, because a clockwork is a symbol of harmony (unification at some level), which is the exact opposite of how I believe our universe came into being. I believe in separate parts all energized as pointing/belonging to various and oppositional overall ways. The variety of quarks fits very well in this overall view, with quarks energized differently due to their different overall orientation —> ultimately not based on unification. The result is a balance of clockworks, all tuned into their own times; there are not many different times, but there is definitively not a single time (except for the abstract wording of time of Now, which in an abstract way can be applied to everything at the same time).
While parts do make together a single entity, such as protons, they are parts delivering a variety of diversification. Various quarks make various entities, so the conclusion is justified to state that both the basics is based on a variety and the result is based on a variety. Unification is not required in any location, though it may appear that way in some locations (such as the color white appears to deliver the single outcome of all colors combined).
Thank you back and best to you, too, Pat.
Fredrick
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
The result is a balance of clockworks, all tuned into their own times; there are not many different times, but there is definitively not a single time (except for the abstract wording of time of Now, which in an abstract way can be applied to everything[i] at the same time
Hi Fredrick
Can't see how you come to such a definitive conclusion?
IMHO there is a definitive 'now' produced by the (clockwork) mechanism of time and the CBR is the sound of the clock ticking..... and it's not abstract.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
Linear Mode
