Variations on an Unfinished Theme-Poem by Minkowsky/Einstein.
A Critique of the Close/Neppe TOE from a BPS Mindscape.
We view this new TOE model, in a nut shell, as a systematic attempt to create a mathematical road map to guide our virtual round trip journey from our human brain, across the multidimensional space-scape of an invisible transfinity, to reach the putative source(s) of vital extrasensory information reaching us and affecting our real time existence in our ecosystem niche on the biosphere. Transfinity, as the term implies, spans across/along the entire spectrum of relevant energy-driven activity outside our sense-phenomenal measurements, from the micro sub-Planckian to the macro cosmological level, especially the mesoscopic relevant activity in our own biopsychosocial (BPS) model of reality. In a previous publication1 we outlined those putative sources as existing in noumenal ‘reality’ characterized as timeless, asymmetric, etc. …and how our brains, genetically restrained to linear processing of sensory data, required a linearization process to make sense and find meanings from inputs arriving from our inside our own existential 4-d ‘cage’ and beyond in transfinity n-1d space time. Inside existential reality we need real-time solutions that maintain and sustain our biopsychosocial (BPS) equilibrium, solutions that recognize our species biological limitations in the resolution of sense-phenomenal information in our midst and limitations in the brain’s combinatorial capacity for resolution of complex symbolic/sentential, un-aided representations, i.e., existential reality is best cognitively understood as an epistemontological hybrid whole. Consequently we needed to reformulate our model of reality by bringing into play all recognized inputs from genetic, memetic and transfinite (from quarks to cosmos) sources.
For starters, we thought it proper to redefine the recursive/reversible communication pathway intraspecies2, interspecies3 when inside the existential 4-d cage and when reaching outside into n-1d transfinity4. We had to choose an appropriate unit of information transfer (all energy o-d singularity point wavicles, the Planckian ‘what’?) and an appropriate 4-d unit spatio-temporal differential geometry compactification whose dimensions evolve during expansion and, at some point, come within the sense-phenomenal 4-d scrutiny of human observations and/or measurements of their content (aggregating Planck units?). We have struggled with the suitable unit structure of transfer whether a Planck unit or suitable multiples/aggregations thereof (fractal photon units?) This was our early call for a new paradigm shift, a head on plunge into dark matter chemistry, the reward in being able to explain how the so called ‘invisible’ mind is causally efficient in moving the visible brain into measurable mesoscopic activity as biophotons, etc. inside our 4-d cage (see Persinger). All energy unit singularities does not exclude negative energies and zero energy states which are all important of crucial importance to explain a possible phase conjugation for negative fermions with their positive counterpart and thereby resolve the puzzle of matter-antimatter asymmetry at the end of the road. We are confident that this way information transfer between the invisible mind and the visible brain now questioned by determinist fundamentalists may become explainable if not describable. What is now viewed as extrasensory epistemology is actually consistent with our sensory ontology and will probably be explained in terms of ‘triadic’ axion unit 0-d zero point singularities interacting/coupling with visible matter structure. As we said, our submodeling attempts have been non-productive …so far, and our expert colleagues are ignoring us. The TOE model is silent to this possibility. It is in this context that we now scrutinize and discuss the new TOE model by proponents.
In the new TOE model “According to the general theory of relativity, asymmetric distribution of mass will warp three-dimensional space and cause movement, which creates a dynamic system and introduces the fourth dimension called time. Einstein and Minkowski proved that time may be described mathematically and geometrically as a fourth orthogonal dimension, and the metric for locating a point in a four-dimensional space-time reality can be calculated consistently if the time unit of measurement (duration, symbolized as Δt) is multiplied by i (the square root of minus one). This tells us that, while space and time are both measurable as dimensions (i.e., variables of extent) they are fundamentally different.” The rest of most of the TOE model story is, in our opinion, a variation on an unfinished theme-poem by Minkowsy-Einstein as will be seen below.
In contrast to the new TOE model, in the BPS model our noumenal, unit 0-d pure energy point singularity is asymmetrical where an exergonic release of energy has initiated expansion and condensation into primary particles in the equivalent of an ‘event horizon’, is ubiquitous. We didn’t call this unit singularity preceding expansion a “first receptor”. We had also decided that an appropriate real-time unit phase space suitable for our timely sensory detection/measurement of relevant objects/events was not our familiar empty 3-d Cartesian space, but an additional time element needed inclusion to indicate when any such object/event made its presence felt to the proper sensory/instrumental receptors, i.e., inside a 4-d spatiotemporal context. Fortunately Minkowsky and Einstein had already worked it out for us. It was also clear that such adoption brought in addition a very special mathematical situation we did not know how to exploit -as the new TOE has so elegantly done-, that it represented the coming into our sense-phenomenal 4-d existential reality a cognitive awareness of the presence of any measurable object/event point with a built-in connection pathway (by expansion) to the extra-sensory n-1d transfinite loci or the theological infinity, as the case may be argued. In addition, we also get irrational, imaginary and complex numbers so suitable to epistemologically reduce and formulate symbolic representations into more credible poems to discuss, debate and refute (by physicalists-determinists). There is no doubt that the new TOE model has made excellent use of the new mathematical tool to explain how may communication between our human species and the invisibility of transfinity is possible, if ever. Our BPS approach was limited to conceive the information transfer from transfinity (as we have published for intra and inter species energy/matter/information transfer), as a brain’s selection process where, after amplification of relevant traveling wavicles, it is followed by their resonant phase coupling with appropriate receptor waveforms and their subsequent relay to a lower energy sink and more stable premotor phase space cortical attractor locus. There free will is exercised by conscious consent to one of several, previous pre-fab probable alternatives, the best adaptive (to the problem at hand taking into consideration the ongoing circumstantial neuro-humoral environment, see “BPS Model of Brain Dynamics.”) and probable prefab solution. This was partially a variation of Dr. Walter. Freeman’s seminal model, now extended beyond the olfactory analysis. However, the ‘background’ steady state activity recorded in the EEG represented to us, not a mere energy amplification device for incident random spatial radiation but the result of a constant sub-threshold activity originating from relevant sensory/extrasensory sources within 4-d or transfinity. That was…and remains an unfinished poem. Through lack of advanced mathematics training and perhaps imagination, we limited our unit o-d singularity point evolution to an easy laymen visualization of how information transfer wavicles project to and from between brain and transfinity as the evolution of an expanding invisible, pure energy o-d point forming first a 1-d line then a 2-d plane, a 3-d sphere/box to the micro equivalent of our existential 4-d Minkowsky spatiotemporal volume of sensory detection in subsequent steps. At that time we did not find it necessary to detail or elaborate on the details of the predicted variations on the stage of a 4-d unit theater volume as the traveling singularity moved across dimensions, releasing energy and forming condensed unit particles in the process. That would decelerate and diminish initial energy content until detected by a brain or any suitable receptor, i.e., leave out the details about the moving particle consequent gravitational deformations of the unit 4-d space(?) with their attending differential geometry symbol representations as scalars, vectors, spinors, twisters or compactification aggregations as strings, Kaluza-Klein, Calabi-Yau, etc. be handled by trained mathematicians and/or visionaries.
This further elaboration is what we found in the new TOE model beginning with the incorporation of Fermat’s last theory argument that makes the TOE’s bridge from here to eternity safer to travel. ‘What’ they will find, ‘when’, and the ‘where’ spatial coordinates of the ‘what’ remains unsolved but why not make a try on the ‘how’?
In developing the new TOE’s dimensionometric strategy to justify their claim about the proper path to answer the insistent physicalist question: ‘where’ in the invisible manifold is the ‘what’?, number theory’s Fermat’s Last Theorem was a good help when it suggested (and one of the new TOE proponents proved) that: no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than two. This is strong ‘evidence’ that, if John Doe in real time existence wants to explain his model of reality to us humans he is more credible when using real (Peano) numbers to explain what objects/events can ‘happen’ inside our Minkowsky existential cage, regardless of their origin anywhere along the quark-cosmos continuum.. or beyond? As the TOE model proponents say: “In Euclidian geometry, you can demonstrate that, as long as you are using anything in the infinite array of real numbers fields, you do not escape the 3 dimensional reality that we all experience.” The proponents’ controversial justification for the use of the time dimension in their formulation (vide infra) and Fermat’s last theorem proof, constitutes the basis on which the new TOE model rests. Notice the importance of defining a unit spatio-temporal volume of reference and the different meaning of ‘time’s role in the BPS and TOE models. As explained in their own words: “This is so as the field of real numbers is defined geometrically by 3 dimensional space because every point in 3 dimensional space can be located with a triad of real numbers. As has been indicated, what is triadic is the fundamental 3-D orthogonality of time and space and biology.” It is noted that the new TOE pays little attention to the role ‘prime’ numbers play in the C-matrix sub-model or when the lines of intersection are other than orthogonal. It can be further misleading to affirm, with Einstein, that there is ‘physical’ evidence that space and time are ‘actually’ being changed as ‘evidenced’ “..through measurements of the orbit of the electron and the orbit of Mercury showing very clearly that space is warped into a 4-D space-time continuum,..” as when describing the propagation of light using Lorentz transformations or Gaussian co-ordinates to symbolically represent non-Euclidean n-1d surface curvatures as Euclidean planar 2-d surface suitable for analysis as if such epistemological ‘map’ were the real-time ontological/measurable ‘territory’, visible or not. Real observable/measurable forces do not deform geometrical representations! These geometrical contortions are just conveniences ‘in abstracto’ that makes it easier to understand/visualize invisible objects/events moving inside the 4-d human cage or from one dimension into another when the relevant transformations guide the shift of matter/energy content from one frame of reference to another. Our BPS or the new TOE model do not consider the super complex characterization of particles traveling as varying forms of stabilized black holes, e.g., as various multiples/quanta of Planck’s unit matter/volumes. Could this be the way they travel across dimensions? Especially when we mathematically impose on them the requirement to travel at the constant speed of light by conveniently using Lorentz transformations so that static observer and moving observed consequences in the measurements are minimized if not canceled. This is where the Wheeler-Feynman advanced/retarded wave poem liberates us from the constancy shackles of light speed restriction, all a consequence of having now the possibility inside our unit existential 4-d cage imaginary and complex numbers traveling at speeds exceeding that of light (non locality), as briefly discussed above. See “BPS Model of Brain Dynamics”5. This is the reason we consider the 4-d existential reality we experience as the result of our brain’s blending of the ontological perceptual and the epistemological conceptual images as a hybrid epistemontological unit in consciousness, all the compensatory sub-conscious effort to adapt to our species resolution limitations as explained above. But we can still experience the genetic driven species urge to explain our origins and eventual destination. We dream and compose poems so long as they are acceptable in the market of ideas and have predictive existential value in maintaining a happy, viable and sustainable biopsychosocial equilibrium in the human species. This genetic drive forces us to think outside the existential 4-d box and make poems, some rooted on credible perceptual and conceptual mind elaborations, others completely dissociated from their 4-d box sensory presence or conceptual existence as in some deterministic ‘theologies’..
Both BPS and new TOE models agree that, except for the characterization of the ‘primary receptor’ preceding the 0-d point singularity expansion, the zero point of our symbolic representation is not the same as nothing. We add that zero dimension is only the ‘proof’ of our species limitation in its perceptual identification, sensory or instrumental. Furthermore, we find it difficult to conceive this point singularity as being simultaneously symmetrical and initiating an expansion at the ‘event horizon’ as the TOE model does and instead we envision a noumenal stage of non-linear, asymmetric unit of proto matter expanding as it moves to lower energy sinks in compliance with 2nd. law of thermodynamic theory and fueling the ‘event horizon’ evolution into the configuration of a living higher structure, now in apparent violation of natural laws of entropy disorganization and being instead the result of an innominate intelligent plan/design ‘causally efficient’ in producing such negentropic result so self evident in e.g., spontaneous in-utero ontogenetic organization of life, atomic distribution of electron orbitals and cosmic inter-galactic order. The new TOE model wrestles with that singularity concept and calls it the ‘primary receptor’, some call it the alpha point, God, creation, or the fuel initiating the expansion into an eventual highest order, a conscious human life at the humanistic very center of a conceptual neocopernican universe. The new TOE claim about the symmetry to be found in their 0-d singularity as verified empirically by COBE probe data needs further elaboration because we understand that symmetry refers to the invariance of any measurable physical form of an object regardless of what kind of rotation or transformation from one coordinate system to another, hardly the required conditions for an event horizon expansion. In our opinion it may be best to consider pure energy 0-d point singularities as convenient mathematical singularities but different from zero because they are unavailable for direct measurement (black holes?). Therefore, rather than considering the symmetry of elementary particles “..a precise and accurate description of the situation in the real world of quantum mechanics.” We prefer to limit such state as just a convenient explanation until experimentally verified.
The spherical surface of the TOE model primary receptor, where our BPS proto-matter allegedly began to form is likened to the reversal of the event horizon in a black hole where gravity slowed down the original force of universal expansion and caused the condensation into the first elementary particles (quarks?) of an evolving proto-universe. Both positions will forever be haunted by the ghost of the ‘infinite regression’ argument.
According to the proposed TOE model the gravitational deformation of the evolving 3-d units of space mysteriously brought about the first spiraling vortex motions randomly moving across n-1d space and yet more mysteriously assisting in the inter-dimensional transfer of information? This vortex role needs further elaboration to justify its alleged involvement. In our admittedly un-informed view on why vortices?; we prefer the role of the spiral geometry as representing a recursive cycling path where a point energy source travels along a diminishing radius of curvature circumference in reaching an energy receptor sink point locus (a new unit 4-d volume? In the offing?). Or, like the new TOE model justifies as “..measurable fields …exhibiting different characteristics of information transfer and processing functions..” This explanation on information transfer is unclear and needs more precision. How may this shifting spiraling conveyance reach any particular level of brain consciousness from transfinity in terms of the number of dimensions present is an unconvincing argument of the C-matrix in spite of the correlative mass/energy gravitational induction/transfer with such vertical geometry in motion. Their association with sub-Planckian 3-d symmetrical quarks is unclear. Likewise, at the macro level of e.g., tornadoes or comets, their association with extrasensory pre-cognitive information transfer from the C-matrix to the brain is speculative and undocumented.
Because of our poorly-informed knowledge about dark matter particle physics we find it difficult and confusing to accept the alleged evidence that all elementary particles are perfectly symmetrical, a notion that intuitively suggests a quasi resting state. Perhaps the unit 0-d quark is already an asymmetric aggregation of additional 0-d units which will tend to spin or spiral when affected by any outside force. The extension of these arguments on subatomic particles to molecular size pharmaceuticals is not documented. Likewise, the assertion based on Fermat Last Theorem, that “..no matter how many dimensions are found to exist, the dynamic form of every existential distinction will tend to be vortical.” is not developed.
The arguments presented about the alleged symmetry of elementary particles as opposed to the asymmetry found in the macro level implies two separate domains of reality! Thus the need for a mesoscopic scale model as the new paradigm where mass/volume of known periodic table elements will be considered as the addition of Planck unit quanta, the same described for black body radiation, i.e.,. 4.22419×10–105 m3. If it were to be found in the ongoing Hadron collider experiments that quark volumes are integral multiples of the Planck volumes/mass satisfying the equation X3 + Y3 + Z3= Q3, we can explain why they are only found in combinations of three to form hadrons. This way we may be able to figure out how their rate dR/dt of linear expansion where radial expansion ‘R’ is directly proportional to the amount of energy E fueling it but indirectly proportional to the amount of particle mass M condensed as they expand and release energy, i.e., dR/dt= f(E/M). With the noumenal state being forever barred from direct human scrutiny we have no choice but to be content with only the appearance of reality to the conscious brain or as the new TOE model expressed it: “The nature of the reality we experience appears to unfold as a sequence of causally related events consisting of matter and energy interacting in time and space; and science, as we know it, consists of efforts to understand and explain this sequence of events.” The TOE model argument that nothing existed before the big bang event horizon because there was no inertial resistance to oppose its original fast, exponential expansion phase seems to contradict the COBE monitor data suggesting the opposite, unless the ‘primary detector’ and its nebulous surrounding milieu were not only invisible to satellite monitors but to metaphysical logic detection as well!
This brings further complications to the TOE model because it plays out Einstein’s speed of light universal constant as, in fact, a variable depending on the inter-conversion rate of energy mass! This would mean that if dR/dt= f(E/M) represents the ratio of energy to mass in the universe and “..there is some evidence that the ratio may have decreased since the expanding event horizon because of the conversion of more energy to mass than mass to energy..”. (emphasis supplied). This conversion, if spontaneous, is in keeping with the second law of thermodynamics BUT it implies a spontaneous, uncaused creation of the zero-point, pure energy singularity, especially if nothing existed before the first exponential expansion or event horizon, as the TOE claims! The BPS model does not see passage of time as a factual, observable measurable event, rather as a virtual convenience our consciousness created when measuring change, the only independent variable whose evolutionary path constitutes an observable, falsifiable event inside our 4-d cage, ever so difficult to apprehend in its details by logic symbols or sentential logic. Relativity and quantum physics tell us that indeed the brain creates consciousness so we can find the existential biopsychosocial meaning to all things, those that are and those that are not, as they somehow find their way into our 4-d sense-phenomenal scenario for ontological or metaphysical/epistemological cognitive identification when at their threshold levels for human/instrumental detection. Even then, their relevance/meaning to a BPS equilibrium state is what makes those objects/events come alive in consciousness, otherwise they may remain invisible. We often wonder if either relevance or meaning makes dark matter presence detectable, if such is real, invisible to our brain processing inside the 4-d cage? As the TOE model clarifies “quantum physics tells us that we have no right to say an object exists until it is registered in consciousness; mental attitude can affect physical health and even the outcome of events.”
This is essentially what the TOE model characterizes as the three primary functions of consciousness. Both models, admittedly or not, cannot describe or explain the ‘what’ or ‘why’, the ‘when’ or ‘where’ of consciousness, only the tentative ‘how’. This is especially true when dealing with differentiating ‘self’ from ‘others’ because of the unsolved paradox of how ’I’, can possibly become engaged in performing an act ‘a’ and simultaneously ascertain/know it is ‘I’ performing by using same machinery parts committed to the performance? Who is ‘I’? We can only explain ‘how’ it may happen as Piaget did in his empirical observations and conjectural analysis of growing toddlers when they allegedly were able to distinguish, by their behavior, they were not an extension from their crib but a distinct, separate entity.
The “How do we draw distinctions in others” explanation in the new TOE model is an heroic attempt to explain and categorize and, from our BPS perspective, is an elaboration of the first function, “how to differentiate self from others”. That, besides being almost as difficult if not impossible, especially when trying to force the distinction capability inside a mathematical straight jacket. Brown’s explanation (Law of Forms) that: “..the world we know is constructed in order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself…” is a non-analyzable conclusion. In a previous publication we analyzed the ‘knowing other’ both as a function of the activity of mirror neurons using similar neuronal mechanisms and answering both questions about self and others but was limited about mind reading ability in anticipation of behavior. We equated the intraspecies, interspecies and transfinite information transfer to phase resonant coupling processes to consolidate several previous publications on the role of mirror neurons, the unconscious genetic (amygdale) memory, the subconscious memetic (hippocampus, cortex) memories and the conscious neocortex decision-making dynamics in attractor phase space. To state that a form of consciousness existed at the expanding event horizon and continues to exist and is also pervasive throughout all space and time, and is the origin of all extropic forms in the universe is another non-analyzable speculation about an important component of the C-matrix of the TOE model.
The TOE’s C-matrix ‘what’ is as elusive as the ‘where’ of consciousness locus. How does a dream achieve that alleged shift of the dreamer toward the first receptor sphere that makes possible an awareness of a higher dimension of reality? Why not a random access to memories, relevant but inaccessible to language processing to be ‘expressed’ with a logical meaningful content as an inner language dream. Anna Freud gives hints of possible emotion-laden conflicts not classically processed in the Broca language area. We have suggested an experimental set-up with fMRI recordings of ongoing transfer of information along pathway connecting parieto-temporal angular/Wechsel gyrus (convergence of sensory input) to Brocas area during a variety of experimental sensory input during the awakened and sleep state for comparison. In our BPS model we become self conscious during the elaboration of a relevant language syntax to convey meaning as expressed as inner (thought) or reported language. We would expect that cortical premotor attractor space, where consent to logical prefab solutions are available is not metabolically active.
Summary and Conclusions.
We had hoped that the ‘Calculus of Distinctions’ would provide to some of us a proper language-based conveyance of probable symbolic or sentential logic reduction/explanations about objects/events outside the sense-phenomenal 4-d cage. These distinctions, beginning with the distinction of self from other as a sine qua non to make distinctions in ‘other’ reality. Our evaluation is that the new TOE is not ready yet to start formulating the adequate representations of quantity, enumeration and equivalence, as required in any calculus. How intelligence or consciousness participates in finding distinctions as the basis of developing meaningful patterns for maximizing man’s existential survival inside his 4-d cage biopsychosocial survival is not spelled out. However, the TOE provides for the reader an excellent mathematical foundation to understand better how the transitions from one dimension to another are represented and the basis thereof. This way, e.g., a tensor is represented by a matrix with the probable numerical value of the relevant elements of the matrix equal to the scalar (0-d tensor), vector (1-d tensor), or n-1d vectors (n-1d tensors) forces acting (measurable!) on a given point in sense-phenomenal 4-d space. Can we call this manifest presence a description (the object/event IS) or an explanation (MAYBE it only probably exists?)? From our 4-d perspective it is a description, in absolute terms it just may be a probable explanation. Their affirmation that spatial and temporal dimensions are fundamentally different even though they may be linked together mathematically, as in Minkowski space, is not clear, for they both represent convenient abstractions to indicate not only where the measurable phenomenon was detected but at what time it became a reality in 4-d space. The only fundamental difference in our model is that whereas we can conveniently adjust the spatial volume dimension to accommodate the probable variations encountered in the analysis, we cannot control that inexorable independent variable we call change and conveniently represent as ‘time’. One can visualize a volume being changed/warped but not time even though arguably, by erroneously equating time=change, one can incorrectly substitute ‘changed’ for ‘timed’ in this sentence to mean “one can visualize a volume being timed/warped … or its equivalent abstract visualization of time-space deformation/warping by gravitational or other forces, a clear category error where ‘real’ matter (whether visible or not in a given dimension) was instantiated inside the convenient but still abstract space-time symbolism. Just like the when the invisible electric and magnetic forces are often lumped together because they act together in the propagation of visible light we can detect and measure inside the 4-d cage, ah.. they also ‘occur’ (we hope) as separate static forces in our EM poem. This is a common error among otherwise brilliant theoreticians. This is a deliberate call to metaphysical logicians aka mathematicians not to lose sight of our real-time 4-d mesoscopic cage while flying high into the n-dimensional lala land. Life is a dream and dreams are just that, dreams!!.
When elaborating on the foundations for a C-matrix, the new TOE carefully skirted the issue of the ‘what’/’where’ in brain-based consciousness, e.g., if the conscious self, as the TOE model suggested, exists in dimensions exceeding, but still encompassing their three dimensions of “ordinary” space, how does self or consciousness recognize or make distinctions between separate objects in our human 4-dimensional space? Notice that this nomenclature only allows us to hopefully/probably ‘describe’ the probable effects of a field that can be measured inside our real-time cage. We can agree that there is only present and “What we think of as the past is actually only images we associate with pattern of impulses stored in the brain, and what we conceive of as the future is only images associated with patterns of impulses we create using “past” images and logic, projecting into an imagined future.” We have expressed it differently, to maintain a present, ongoing image alive we recursively go presentàbackàpresent and, by using the past memory as the basis of a probable new solution, we are at that moment recursively and simultaneously in the dynamic present, past and future analyzing our options when having to confront an important threat to our BPS equilibrium, especially when the threat is novel and has no recorded precedents in memory.
The TOE model makes a good defense of their dimensionologic arguments about the case when different objects/events may coincide in time creating two or more time-lines especially when these may coincide and still can all be represented in their 3T geometric time. As we said earlier, their intersection only represents in our model their simultaneous presence one particular moment in time when we could detect their presence. This means, in addition, that in sense-phenomenal 4-d reality it is not enough to detect/describe one or more energies/forces measured but when are they present and interacting in a meaningful and relevant BPS context. Consequently, for EACH of the 5 natural forces known to be present/described in our mindscape each one needs an additional time dimension for every 2 measurable interactions/intersections, e.g., when all 5 forces/energies are simultaneously present as 4-d Minkowsky units each, then the resulting mix = 20-d reality further reduced to a resulting composite of 4-d existential description/explanation relevant to our BPS equilibrium! We would rather develop a new paradigm model consisting in adding Planck quantum volume units of matter/energy until we approach/arrive at the mesoscopic macro dimension we humans are familiar with and see what happens from that gemish. But we don’t know what to do with the dark matter accumulation that may result and their probable relevance to our view of real-time reality. We have all the metaphysical logic tools and still looking for a suitable strategy to develop it….., we will … hopefully sooner than later.
The new TOE model offers some possibilities in their development of their C-matrix. Could the forces associated with conscious thought, volition and intent be ultimately related to energy/matter instantiated in the form of atoms with orbiting positrons attracted by a negatively charged nucleus, as posited for dark matter.” Can these hypercomplex forces/energies be located in a hyperspace location for consciousness? The TOE model shyly suggests that the forces “..may be found as a result of the elementary particle/waves of our world being complex hyper-dimensional objects. Even though patterns of neuron firings in the brain may be correlated with thoughts and actions arising from those thoughts, no trace of the conscious observer who has these thoughts and distinguishes self from other has been found in the 3S, 1T world. Is it possible that the seat of the conscious self may reside in the additional dimensions of reality?” Brilliant vision but, where do we go from there? We have insisted and argued that existential reality can only be meaningfully understood as the result of 4-d and/or reduced n-1 d representations in our brain, regardless of whether it represents the invisible noumenal or the visible/measurable existential state. Because the energy/forces being reversibly transferred to or away from a conscious brain -where ultimately they become ‘alive’ and take residence- exist in our 4-d mind/brain space. Thus the need to define how their interaction/intersection transfer is realized, whether vortex spinors/twisters conveyors or otherwise. In this respect the TOE model alerts that “linear forces acting on an object in any reality of three or more dimensions will result in predominantly spiraling motions. Experiments in particle physics bear this out, revealing spinning particles and spiraling motions. For this reason, special tensors called “spinors” and “twistors” have been developed. Spinors are tensors with components of angular momentum or spin, developed by physicists Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli for application to elementary entities like electrons and positrons, with intrinsic rotation or spin. Twistors are spinors developed by British mathematician-physicist Roger Penrose specifically for three spatial dimensions, and one time dimension, where the time dimension variable is “i”, the square root of minus one. This is also known as Minkowski space, after Hermann Minkowski, the mathematician who developed it specifically for the mathematical description of Einstein’s special relativity.” This all makes good sense but we are not in a position to visualize how these conveyors are formed and/or what influences guide their motions.
Assuming that vortices travel across dimensions as propelled by attractive/repulsive gravitational forces, what role do dimensions play in this physical interaction is not clear. Is the direct eyewitness observation of two visible metallic objects attracting each other from a distance the result of dimensions?? Can dimensions physically interact? Do dimensions have a physical structure? As we have said above, it is not enough to describe two intersecting forces we can measure inside our 4-d space, it is more relevant to cognitively ascertain WHEN their respective time-lines will intersect and can be consciously felt as a relevant BPS reality. The TOE model position that “Gravity reflects the existence of a fourth dimension, coinciding with and central to the warping. It is not an attraction from a distance but the result of interacting dimensions allowing for movement because of warping of the dimensional structure.” may ultimately be correct but as an explanation of our eyewitness account of two metal objects attracting each other from a distance as explained by the inverse square law, well, may have to be explained as a dimension-relevant meta-dimensional event by the TOE model. The Bohr hydrogen orbital model basis for the explanation of diamagnetic and paramagnetic influences in larger molecular species according to their non-homogenous/asymmetric distribution of mass complies better with Occam’s razor reasoning. It is our feeling that building a complex super structure resting almost exclusively on variations on a theme-poem by Minkowsky-Einstein cornerstone, i.e., the metaphysical warping of space time invisibility being causally efficient in producing a falsifiable physical attraction, is risky business. Are the fundamental forces of electricity and magnetism creating three dimensions of consciousness by warping TOE’s 6D reality? Why should electricity & magnetism be considered as different from ordinary matter/energy wavicles in the creation of the ‘conscious dimension’? Dimensions have just a virtual physical structure in the ‘representation’ of either a sensed object/event (territory) or its invisible n-1d counterpart in workable dimensions (the map) so long as n-1 d transfinite objects/events find their way thru the dimensional track into our real-time 4-d cage description/explanation or probable inferential ‘detection’. It is true that Einstein regarded matter, energy, space and time, in short, physics as a problem in geometry but he also stated that the: ” concept of time is a persistent illusion” when referring to the path from transfinity to our 4-d field of sensory or mental ‘detection’ of the unit singularity wavicle aggregates not about how it condensed into the particles we can detect as constituents of the content/message.
It is not clear how, if n represents possibly an unreachable infinity, n-1 represents a probable reachable transfinity and n+1 wouldn’t make dimensional/measurable sense, the TOE model statement that ”..an n-dimensional reality produces an (n+1) -dimensional reality which contains an infinite number of n-dimensional realities. We call this the Principle of Dimensional Extrapolation. .” Proper notation clarifies dimensionality. Likewise for a 3-d object/event to be captured into a probable reality it must coincide with the given moment (t) an observer attempts to detect it with his senses or mind state. As argued above, a pure energy, unit expandable, condensable singularity wavicle is a 4-d spatiotemporal unit of 0-d asymmetry in n-1 d transfinity space which, upon finding its way into our 4-d cage for detection by instruments or brain/mind, condenses stepwise(?) into unit particle(s) and may aggregate into detectable dimensions (instruments or mind-state). The complementary relationship forming the basis of the attraction along the dimensional path between the origin and the brain has been outlined in previous publication and defined as a wave offer and an acceptance relationship (see Wheeler Feynman diagram. The TOE model characterization of a “…finite, static 3D reality in a state of maximum entropy; i.e., matter and energy either do not exist in the space, or they are evenly distributed throughout the space. Such a space would not be warped by any external force and would thus be perfectly symmetrical. There would be no movement and thus no sense of time.” may either describe an energy sink state with no free energy to do work or transfer to a different location or their ‘primary receptor’ state as evidenced by the COBE satellite images. Either way it may not qualify as the origin of the event horizon state or the mysterious primary receptor. The BPS model unit 0-d dimension wavicle point singularity has maximum pure energy (micro black hole?) to be released (as proto matter elementary particles) as it gets transferred to its eventual receptor destination inside the brain or away from it.
The TOE model’s excellent didactic ‘lei motif’ repeating that when: “..a point of reference, .. the origin in our 4D reality, is chosen and orthogonal reference lines are drawn from the origin to enable us to locate any point, P(x, y, z, t). (then)… The orthogonality of the lines from the origin is arbitrary, but if they are not …, calculation of the distance between any two points is greatly complicated. (and)… when an additional dimension is introduced and included in the ..description, it is projected as orthogonal to all other dimensional reference lines. (because then) ..only the metrics of (up to)…three-dimensional reality can be represented by real number variables…(otherwise)…additional orthogonal dimensions must be represented by multiples of the square root of negative one (i), and measurements and calculations in that space-time will involve complex numbers of the form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers. (parentheses added). This, as explained above, is the cornerstone of the TOE model structure. The Achyles tendon, from the reductionist’s point of view, continues to be how may this mathematical scaffolding may reach the coordinates of the primary receptor special spatio-temporal configuration site? This makes the C-matrix configuration somewhat elusive in our opinion. How may ‘conscious wavicles’ be measured and metrics discovered?
However, wherever there may exist a 0-d pure energy point singularity or quantum multiples thereof, as explained, an infinite number of 4-d units can be mathematically constructed as all existing in the present and expressed in real (Peano) numbers, their volume being a function of the number of variables being accommodated.
Summary and Conclusions.
To build a ‘bottoms-up’ multidimensional model of reality we should start from the pure energy 0-d point singularity wavicle somewhere in n-1d manifold i.e., from 0-d point à 1-d line à 2-d plane à 3-d box/sphere space à 4-d space-time à n-1d = n(4-d) somewhere, looking for patterns of dimensional features that may be extrapolated from those dimensions into realities of a higher number of dimensions until we arrive the 4-d sense-phenomenal reality..
We distinguish ontological and epistemological representations that appear inside perceptual 4-d or outside of it in the conceptual memory domain including genetic, memetic and n-1d transfinite data bases. We have discussed elsewhere how the brain contrast/compare and determine the old from the novelty, the safe from the threats by mediation of the amygdale, hippocampus, unconscious and conscious cortical strata in premotor neocortical phase space attractors. We have also discussed how information reversibly travels interspecies and intraspecies, from the internal/external world for transmission as electrical impulses over neural pathways to the brain for processing into three-dimensional images mimicking objects and changes in the external “real” world in the consciousness of the observer. It all starts from the specifically human feature of being able to introspectively distinguish self from other as a ‘sine qua non’ or the very basis of conscious experience, as explained elsewhere, e.g., Piaget theories, etc. The sense-phenomenal perceptual ‘field’ includes, besides what’s inside the external 4-d cage that is measured, also the internal body proper neuro-humoral milieu monitored by receptors as discussed elsewhere. The internal body proper equilibrium is best maintained at subconscious servo-control levels as explained. Besides the classical external receptor input from inside the 4-d domain, n-1d elementary particles/waves in the physical universe bring/carry information as photons and electrons and become part of the mix. Because of temporal feedback, humans think they are directly observing what they believe to be the real world, while in fact, what he is seeing are only images in his own head that may or may not be one-to-one representations of the “real” world, reality is in the brain. Not only that, because the images and memories they evoke may be laced with emotions, the observer may further subconsciously edit and interpret the images as representative of a safe/dangerous, beloved/hated, good/bad, or a neutral object/event, and this interpretation will influence his actions and the outcome of those actions. We have discussed this relevance of individualized emotional circumstances influencing what may have been initially a pondered rational decision.
Where is the location, the seat of consciousness, inside/outside the brain? John Neumann’s puzzle about the genetic, memetic and n-1d information entering and leaving the body “and somehow it registers in the consciousness of the observer.” tells all. John von Neumann couldn’t ascertain its location. The primary pre –Big Bang receptor and consciousness may both exist, and that they are necessary to the existence, experience and understanding of reality; but the questions of exactly where and how they exist and function still remain a mystery. The seat of consciousness may exist in real dimensions beyond the 4-d perceptible through our physical senses? As a working hypothesis, let’s assume that it does, and that at least one dimension exists beyond the four we perceive. Perhaps located in an extended reality with additional dimensions, with the ability to be aware of and operate in the 4-d reality. Consciousness (as C-matrix) comes in as the primary receptor, all the way back at the event horizon (e.g., the big bang): The patterns, the information and the logic that is a blueprint of everything that could or would develop out of the big bang had to be present at the event horizon. What are the forces that create these warpings? The warpings of 3 dimensional space to 4, 5, and 6-D in the T domain are all related to gravitation because of the multiple gravitational centers in proximity Earth. Furthermore, the two electromagnetic (EM) forces could warp reality in 2 different ways because they act at (right) angles to each other—this has been verified experimentally: Consequently, if there is another force, we could postulate these additional EM forces that act at a distance.
Experiments have shown that the elementary particles of the EPR paradox (simultaneous knowledge of both the momentum and position of a particle, see Einstein –Bohr debate) do not exist until they register on receptors holds for all elementary particles. John Wheeler: “No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”. We have information on brain receptors but when the ‘prayer’ to a God is initiated in the brain, where is the destination receptor in n-1d? Are there two fundamental realities, a macro, deterministic Newtonian and a micro probabilistic quantum reality or is this a reflection of the human limitations as an observer.? Do particles exist dispersed at random in space between source and receptor (Bohr)? It would seem as if each of a pair of complementary elementary particles formed at the same time would contain information about the other particle when detected, no matter how far apart in time and space, i.e., they are entangled giving rise to the counterintuitive ‘non-locality’ measured behavior. Is there an infinity continuum between the micro quarks and the smallest galaxy, connected by similar unit paths where quarks/measurable universes harbor respectively smaller and smaller entities and bigger and bigger galaxies, ad infinitum? Now we can place the unit quantum singularity, as defined to include negative energies, at both ends of the spectrum where everything in between, especially at our 4-d mesoscopic level of organization, will be ascertained as real within certain probability parameters of being detected with a receptor as a dark matter mesoscopic quantum phase with unknown quantum properties, including the consent-type of free will and intentional action in 4-d real-time scales familiar to us. Dark matter would be responsible for the mysterious vital force. Is there room for free will at the deterministic macro or the probabilistic micro? Currently, the prevalent scientific belief is that all phenomena and events making up the universe can be characterized as a mixture of materialistic determinism and randomness. This leaves absolutely no room for free will. It is also counterintuitive to believe that the details of our lives could be completely determined by factors over which we have no control. In our BPS model we suggest that we consent to one of several probable options subconsciously assembled from the various genetic, memetic and n-1d inputs and located in pre-motor cortical phase space attractors. We ultimately choose the probable option most compatible with a qualia of well being and happiness, however transient and illogical it may turn out to be in the long run, we have free will! We have published the detailed progression of relevant/irrelevant environmental info from a receptor to the neocortex with the participation of the unconscious (DNA genetic memory, amygdala), the subconscious (hippocampus/cortex memetic memory) and conscious (neocortex) processing. Yet, the BPS model is incapable of explaining even the basic self-evident human experience of conscious awareness, let alone emotions and feelings and other human transfinite n-1d experiences that lie beyond explanation in the model.
Another aspect of Dr. Close’s/Neppe model is energy expansion. Science has identified four physical forces: the strong and weak atomic forces, electromagnetic forces, and gravity. But, if the standard model is correct, there is a fifth force: the force of universal expansion. The local effects of the first four have been studied extensively, but the fifth is considered primarily on the cosmological scale. This article explores the hypothesis of an expanding Earth under the gravitational effects of moon, sun its own matter.
This raises some interesting questions: Is the ratio of energy to mass in the universe changing? If mass is increasing and energy is decreasing, as implied by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the speed of light is slowing down. What does this imply about the expansion of the universe and the evolution of space-time? Can we know for sure?
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. Deltona, Florida, Spring 2011..