QUALIA XI: CONVERSATIONS between Physicists, In Exploration and Definition of QUFD From the QUFD website, at: http://go.to/QUFD
Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

QUALIA XI: CONVERSATIONS between Physicists, In Exploration and Definition of QUFD


Exploring QUFD Principles,
from the QUFD website,
at: http://go.to/QUFD

By Father Jerome


    The following are edited copies of recent email 'Conversations' between Father Jerome and Dr. Richard Ruquist (PhD Physics, Harvard, 1966) of Cambridge, Mass., who sent emails to Father Jerome inquiring with regard to QUFD, in that he would shortly have an associate presenting his own scientific 'Paper' on Quantum Consciousness at the Quantum Mind 2003 Conference in Tucson, Arizona in March, 2003. These 'Conversations' have been reproduced here in the public interest, and it is to be noted that such email correspondence, legally being of a public venue and nature when such email pertains to 'professional scientific concerns' (as for example, there are to be found on the Internet, extensive 'reprints' of correspondence between scientists, as a means of 'publishing' such 'correspondence' as legal 'findings' related to whatever the research in question might be), have also been reproduced and edited without the necessity of Dr. Ruquist's 'permission'. That said, it is nowhere in this document to be inferred or intended to defame, slander or otherwise legally impugn the professional and upstanding nature of Dr. Ruquist's position and stature in the scientific community. To the contrary, this document is merely an example of one means of collaboration between scientists today, that being the use of the Internet and Email in doing so. Most editorial comments included herein this document are merely meant to inform the general public of the 'realities' of the practice and methodologies of modern science and it's various 'practitioners' and their particular proclivities for their 'practice' and nothing more! One might say this could be similar to the differences in the nature of the 'practitioners' and the 'style' with which they go about their individual 'practices', referring to the two town Doctors of the popular WB TV series "Everwood".

    The 'Conversations' are presented here as an example of the somewhat extensive 'difficulties' that all levels of quantum scientists are yet having in their 'explorations' of the facts and truths of Quantum Consciousness, ranging from the 'scientific Establishment' itself (yet mostly consisting of obsolete Classical Newtonian Physicists, who cannot accept most any 'quantum' aspect to Consciousness, preferring to yet designate 'consciousness' as a function of the human brain, thusly generating those vast sums of current brain-consciousness-research funding for these 'vested interests', in their efforts to 'prove' that 'consciousness' originates in the brain from mere neurological function rather than from anywhere outside of the human brain!), to Quantum 'Mechanics', those Newtonian-steeped Classical Physicists who are yet willing to consider the human Mind and Consciousness to be more than the human brain itself, to the true Quantum 'Physicists', who have given up on Classical Newtonian Physics and do surely consider the human Mind and Consciousness to be somehow extant beyond the human brain, in the quantum realms, but not yet sure of how such a reality might be! Without inquiring as to the particular 'status' (with regard to the foregoing 'classifications' of modern physicists) of his associates, the 'Conversations' presented here do seem to reveal a modern physicist who is somewhere between a quantum 'mechanic' and a true quantum 'physicist', yet who is still eminently trying 'to figure it out' (Consciousness), using the corporeal (physical/material) 'mechanics' of his Quantum Physics (yet Classical Newtonian) 'training', and thusly having a difficult time understanding the true 'realities' and dynamics of the quantum realms. [And I am sorry, but it was necessary to point out this gentleman's 'foibles' of mind and consciousness, as to his requests so rendered, as a means of not only detailing but also distinguishing exactly where the various 'classes' of scientists are today on this very important subject, Consciousness. I do so (like this, in bold text) throughout the following 'Conversations'.]

    Incidentally, before I go on here, as an emphasis to what I have here forth said, I'd like to repeat a quotation that I have used on the pages of the QUFD website:

    "The primary purpose of science is to understand what the world is like. Everything else that science does - test theories, produce new technologies - is incidental to this fundamental purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of reality."
    - David Deutsch, Theoretical Physicist, Oxford, Great Britain
    And the key word here is 'reality', by which Dr. Deutsch 'infers' that science has the obligation to explore the 'realities' of not only corporeality but also the incorporeality of the quantum realms to the fullest. Thusly I have most proudly quoted him in QUFD.

    Getting back to our 'Conversations' here, let me start with the one of the first emails from Dr. Ruquist, inquiring as to where my E-'book', "KNOWING: The Quantum Physics of Consciousness, Life & Reality!" could be found.

    (17 Dec 22:18)

    Father Jerome

  1. I cannot find it in the Greater Boston library database or on the web. Any suggestions on how I can obtain it?

  2. My interest is in axion consciousness. [The paper] has been accepted at the Quantum Mind 2003 (Scientific Conference) in Tucson, Arizona in March. But it appears that you have published the same concepts. So I want to credit you in that paper.

    Richard

    Jerome replies:

    (18 Dec 14:18)

  3. Thank you most graciously for your communiqu‚ regarding "KNOWING:..." The details on it are found on several pages of the QUFD website, as well as 'solicitations' for publication. As stated, that tome is yet in 2nd Edition manuscript status, a required publisher having not yet been found or evidenced.

  4. However, many documents throughout the QUFD website are based upon the manuscript and the research stemming therefrom. For details of that research, the various pages of the QUFD website do present such, as a correlate to the book, presented in textbook-form on the website, for more ready assimilation and understanding by worldwide readers of QUFD. For correlation to any content in your [paper], check especially the Main QUFD document and the QUALIA series documents, although many other webpages may relate in some way to those main documents in that QUFD is 'holistic' and multi-disciplinary as well as all-encompassing.

  5. May I wish you well on your endeavors and Thank You for joining the many others worldwide who have found the relevancy of QUFD in their lives and are 'applying' it in whatever way and form is suitable to their Life.

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    Richard replies:

    (18 Dec 17:46)
    Father Jerome

  6. Yes. I found your paper [website?] on QUFD and read it this morning. [??? Interesting, considering there are over 1500+ webpages and the Main QUFD document alone takes 37 hours to read! Readers around the world are yet reading QUFD after months of effort thereupon. So Dr. Ruquist's comment here is most interesting.] It seems to contain everything of interest except exactly how the axion condensate detects or activates the neuron signals. You do not mention what the coupling is between the axion condensate and the H2 atoms of the neurons.

  7. Also you state that the microwave signals generated in the neurons are detected by the axion condensate but recent experiments on such effects were null. See http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~tanner/PDFS/axion.pdf. I am not meaning to be critical as I expect that such coupling has to be true. But it does seem to be the key piece of information to make the whole system hang together and to make it scientifically valid. Can you elucidate? Have I missed something in your articles?

    Respectfully,
    Richard Ruquist

    (20 Dec 17:23)
    Richard

  8. Okay, let me see what I remember off the top of my head here and now. [Jerome does not intend to render a lengthy reply at this time, most all answers to such questions being readily available on the QUFD website.] It sounds like you have read the Main QUFD document, http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qufd2.html and have gotten to the section on Feedback between the corporeal brain and the incorporeal condensate. I remember some of the research on this came from Ilya Prigogine and some other came from a famous English physicist whose name I can't remember right off. Other info came from physicist Danah Zohar and her husband Ian ... can't remember his name right off. Further is from another English physicist, whom I have mentioned (I believe) further on in the Main Document, where I discuss the basis of incorporeal density in the human brain/mind (I think I used his name, but I can't remember what it is right off). [Jerome here is merely pointing out the obvious fact that QUFD does not note nor bibliograph each and every reference 'source' for whatever is being discussed on any page because of the 'holistic' and multidisciplinary, wide-ranging nature of QUFD itself. Jerome later, in another email, attempts to relate the fact that QUFD has taken all of the individual 'trees' of the forest (individual research), and put them together into a 'forest', or 'Big Picture', where the 'creation' thereof (QUFD) is more so of Jerome's 'doing', although all the other uncredited and untold scientists have thusly contributed thereto.]

  9. I hope this may have answered your question. Sorry, but this is one reason that I have not followed standard 'attribution' procedures in the writing of QUFD in that QUFD is really an 'amalgam' of many scientist's research for which I personally found it quite difficult to provide bibliographical info for everyone who may have had a contribution thereto. Just happened to be the way my mind works, concentrating more so on the content and context rather than living up to the scientific establishment's requirements and expectations for attribution. In other words, I 'just told it as it was!' But it seems that you are attempting to provide 'references' in conformance with those establishment 'rules' and I find that I cannot be very helpful there other than what I have provided above. As I have mentioned elsewhere on my website - in the document http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Incorporeality.html, I believe - I have gone very light on 'references' in that they are mostly attributable to 'corporeal' research and the main implication that I put forth here is the Incorporeal aspects of my own research beyond 'corporeality', using only those 'interface' aspects of such scientists as I have noted to complete the picture as to interactions between corporeality and incorporeality.

  10. I hope this is helpful.

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (20 Dec 22:40)
    Dear Father Jerome

  11. Sorry to be persistent. But I am looking for a mechanism [Oh, these Quantum 'Mechanics'!], not a reference. I am familiar with all the works of all the names you mentioned [Really! Even those works that I mention in later emails which you say you had not seen!], including Penrose, whom I presume is the English fellow whose name you forgot. I have no problem with the model you present. My belief is that it is correct. Even the part about evolution being evil [I said that?].

  12. But I am concerned with the mechanism that allows the self condensate to sense microwaves, and the mechanism that allows the self to determine the status of the H2 molecule. The problem is that axions are not detected as of yet. [Gee, I wonder why? Maybe I should look in QUFD for the answer?] And so my question is how can axions be detected by the brain, and how can axions detect what is going on in the brain?

  13. If you do not know, that's fine. It can be left for scientists to discover what the coupling mechanism is. But if you have any clues as to what the coupling mechanism is, I would like you to tell me what they are so that I can reference you in my paper. As it stands now, I can say that you have a complete and comprehensive model for how consciousness works but the coupling between the self condensate and physical brain is not known. [I will say this once here. The 'coupling' that this gentleman is looking for is completely explained in the pages of QUFD. I attempt to point this out and to clarify his understanding further in subsequent emails.] This is crucial as experimental investigation as discussed in the link below indicates that there is no coupling between physical matter or light and axions:
    http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~tanner/PDFS/axion.pdf

  14. There is a Russian web article that claims to have evidence of the generation and detection of axions. But I suspect that you might have more accurate knowledge of how the axions couple to electronic or photonic phenomena. It seems to me that the crucial step is to specify how the brain can couple with dark matter [which is Spirit]. If this cannot be specified and experimentally verified [Hell No! Spirit cannot be 'observed', as a quantum 'principle'!], then I do not think, to be blunt, that there is much hope of your model gaining scientific acceptance [he is referring here, of course, to the 'scientific establishment', which he seems to be inferring that he is a member thereof]. That may not matter to you. But I find your model to be necessarily correct and I would hope that the world of scientists [which I can certainly trust is more than the 'establishment'] could come to the same conclusion.

    Regards,
    Richard

    (21 Dec 13:55)
    Richard

  15. Okay, let's get down to the nitty-gritty here, being as that is what you are looking for [apparently detailed, in writing, by email, so you don't have to read it in QUFD!]. But, I must put forth the first warning here, which is that I am not sure whether the 'scientific establishment' is yet ready and willing to accept THE BASIC PREMISE that differentiates the brain from Mind - which is that the brain is corporeal BUT THE MIND IS INCORPOREAL! Incorporeality CANNOT be 'proved', seen, detected and on and on, EXCEPT (as Einstein and many others have postulated) IN THE RESULTS! Let me refer you to one more page of my website, if you haven't been there already, in the Lectures section, http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lectures.html, of BASIC fundamentals (although some of this material comes from theoretical physicist Fred Alan Wolf): The Quantum Physics of Time, at http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lecture4.html.

  16. Again, this Basic lecture merely stresses the difference between brain and Mind as the very important difference between corporeality and incorporeality. Oh, yes, as you say (or imply), some day one of our great scientists (Hey, maybe you!) will somehow derive some corporeal 'mechanism' to detect incorporeality, rather than just the results thereof, BUT IT AIN'T HAPPENED YET, that I know of. All one can do, as I have done, using quantum mechanical principles, is 'observe' THE RESULTS! (Did the Swiss experiments - at CERN, perhaps? - can't remember the physicist's name - Aspect, maybe? - to detect 'non-local ???', shooting particles from A to B or C across a barrier (my memory is vague), produce anything OTHER THAN 'observation' of the results - NOT 'observation' of a 'mechanism'?)

  17. This is where my Formulation stands strong (OR weak, if you like), because, as I say, I look at these postulated 'dynamics' FROM INCORPOREALITY, not having, myself, the expertise of addressing anything beyond the INTERFACE between corporeality and incorporeality, into the corporeal brain. Sorry, I leave that to others. In this sense, all I can do, as to the corporeal-side 'mechanisms', is to quote/paraphrase others who have postulated SOMETHING MORE THAN A CORPOREAL 'mechanism' at work here. One more referral to my webpages here. Check out the several pages, in the Short-Cut Menu, of my COMMENTS, http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Comments.html, regarding brain-mind research (Physicist Papp, of Lawrence-Berkeley Labs, and others).

  18. Additionally, to get back to the interface 'dynamics', Danah Zohar has some pictorials and comments on the molecular string of the synapse in one of her books. Ilya Prigogine postulates the temperature-dynamic-component of the glial-cell interface-condensate as 98.6F. Was it Penrose, maybe, who mentioned the density-component of the condensate at minus 125 digits (or whatever)? And in the Main QUFD document, I do explain the 'dynamic' of what 'switches' the (NaH2?) molecule on or off - IT IS THE ARBITRARINESS, the UNKNOWN, OF Incorporeality, the 'mechanism' of INDETERMINABILITY, which comes from the THIRD component of the condensate of consciousness, that of Sentience, or Spirit, which comes from Universal/Cosmic Infinite Consciousness (God), or Dark Matter, as you correctly state. So until you can CORPOREALLY 'observe' the 'mechanism' of Sentience IN ACTION, the best we can do is postulate the 'dynamics' OF its 'actions' by 'observing' the results, as quantum mechanics has SO FAR revealed!

  19. Come on now, this is your challenge, to 'go beyond', not only yourself BUT ALL OTHERS (including this poor Soul)! THAT is what I have put forth in QUFD, that BY scientifically understanding all these postulated 'mechanisms', ONE CAN UNDERSTAND not only the lower Mind, the self, but also the Soul, the upper Mind.

  20. AND THEN maybe ALL of humanity can finally break out of our 'cages' and DO SOMETHING ABOUT that damn Luciferian 'Veil of Unknowing', of negative axion particles, between upper and lower mind. (More on this in the QUALIA series on the website!)

  21. Hope this has helped further. Wish you the Best,
    Jerome

    (21 Dec 16:15)
    Richard

  22. Okay, I remembered a few more things that may be helpful. First of all, check my QUALIA 1 document, http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qualia1.html, for examples of the 'dynamics' between Soul and self. And this is the further point I want to stress. You say you're looking for 'mechanisms', but that, it seems to me, is yet thinking from the obsolete Newtonian Classical Physics perspective, trying to place the functioning of the quantum Mind into corporeality. Instead think 'dynamics', because we are talking here of infinite AND INSTANTANEOUS variables that are NOT 'seeable' in any way.

  23. Let me give a further reference. You have your BEC condensate ground-state, but in order for it to 'do something' it has to be 'influenced' BY all the various inputs that contribute TO the 'decision' made by the Soul, as the highest decision-making 'dynamic' of the Mind. Now the Soul is going to take into account genetics, phyllo-inputs, personality, instantaneous inputs (rather than the over-time inputs just mentioned) and lots more, INCLUDING inputs from without of that local Mind, i.e., from the Cosmos, from God, from other condensate ground-states, of the Collective Consciousness of humanity, and anything else that is pertinent, AS DETERMINED BY Sentience/Spirit. All of this contributes to the final 'perturbation', or 'point of criticality', which is extended to the lower mind to find and supervise the appropriately necessary corporeal 'mechanisms' of the brain, VIA the supervision and synaptic 'routing' of the self (lower mind), acting through the interface 'mechanism' of the individual glial-cell surrounding each appropriate synaptic junction. And the self/Soul DOES KNOW (rather the Sentience thereof KNOWS) which is the 'perturbation-of-the-Soul-condensate-through-the-appropriate-glial-cell-controlling-portion-of-the-self' TO activate that which the Soul originates, as a 'dynamic' of Consciousness in INCORPOREALITY! Of course, as my Qualia1 document points out, we have to contend with the 'Veil of Separation/Unknowing', i.e., Luciferian negative consciousness, between Soul and self that usually re-routes that action which would normally be effected by a Mature-Mind Soul-self 'dynamic'.

  24. Okay, here I need to note that all of this does invoke further research from another, or several, disciplines ... namely Complex-Adaptive Systems principles, from the Santa Fe Institute and such of their 'thinkers' as Murray Gell-Mann, Chris (???) and others. Because when a specific input 'stimulates' the condensate and all of its pre-existing 'dynamics', it is a sworlling 'critical-mass-perturbation' that results, on the critical edge of chaos (Chaos theory, here!) ALL of these inputs ARE NOT 'mechanisms' (pre-determinable), but are 'dynamics', instantly created and attributable TO WHATEVER the input 'dynamics' WERE that 'created' the 'result' (quantum observation).

  25. Some of these concerns are why I want to stress that QUFD goes beyond corporeal 'mechanisms' and until the day arrives that mankind can INSTANTLY anticipate and observe incorporeal 'dynamics', I think the best that we can do is to use the multidisciplinary principles of QUFD to analyze the inputs versus the outputs. I am not 'beating my horn' here or anything self-aggrandizing, but merely stating the 'realities' of the situation. Such, of course, is what I do - explore and 'expose' Reality!

  26. My advice, Richard, is that you cannot confine Consciousness to quantum physics or any other discipline alone. Consciousness is MULTI ... disciplinary and more, from top to bottom! That is why I say, via links on my Opening Page, that when one can realize the functionality of all these 'dynamics', AS APPLIED TO THE INDIVIDUAL, then one can truly explain WHY one 'left the dog out at 6:15 this morning' OR WHY anything else that happens in corporeality DOES have some origination, somehow, in INCORPOREALITY, or Spirit!

    Be Well,
    Jerome

    (21 Dec 20:56)
    Father Jerome

  27. I want to thank you for your extensive replies. You mention the Santa Fe people such as Gell-Mann. Well, he and researchers like Penrose will be at the Quantum Mind 2003 conference. And so I want to have an answer for their obvious questions.

  28. Since physics cannot detect axions in the laboratory, why should we expect that the brain can detect them? Now I believe that the brain does detect the condensate axions, and that the axions can detect processes in the brain. In fact, I believe in everything you have written that I have read so far, with the exception of QUFD. ["... with the exception of QUFD"??? If that is the 'exception', what exactly is it that you have been 'reading'???] Could you provide a reference to Einstein's work that you derived QUFD from? I do believe that the condensate must couple to the brain. But I do not know how condensate couples with condensate. [What the H--- do you think you have just read, in the email that you are replying to by this reply from you? Apparently you read my reply but did not understand it. That's the only possibility that I can see, i.e., the 'Dale Carnegie Triple-Telling Syndrome', where the receiver/listener cannot correctly understand what is told/said by a teller until the teller has repeated the 'telling' at least 3 times, in order to overcome, 1. the receiver's own predilections and biases, and then 2. the receiver's 'programmed' or trained, i.e., told by someone else, memories, and finally 3. any residue of memory or characteristics of mentality, i.e., stubbornness, etc., that otherwise prevents or blocks the accurate reception or 'hearing' of that which the teller is imparting unto that receiver.) The dynamics and feedback mechanisms that you describe in your QUFD and Qualia articles indicate that the condensate can detect microwaves in the brain, and also that the condensate can influence the state of the leading H2 molecule. [Just as my previous email to you has detailed!]

  29. Sikivie derived a theory predicting that axions can convert to photons in a strong magnetic field. But the field inside the brain is not strong, as far as I know. [The condensate 'field' is NOT a magnetic field, it is a unitary field, of ALL the quantum forces!] And furthermore, the experimental tests based on this theory failed to find any photons converted from axions. That is the most corporeal mechanism I know of. [I'll repeat it again! I've described, in QUFD, the 'dynamics' of INCORPOREALITY, not corporeality!]

  30. Another possibility is that the microwaves perturb the charges of the axion Cooper pair directly, creating a slight extension of each pair in the microwave field. The problem I see with that mechanism is that the cosmic axions that are derived from GUT theory do not have charge. And so the fundamental particles of your QUFD condensate do not seem to correspond to the axions postulated to exist in dark matter. [This is because the axions exist in Incorporeality, NOT corporeality! The theories, postulates and 'mechanisms' that this gentleman refers to are corporeal, NOT incorporeal!] Could it be a color charge rather than an electrical charge? [Both of which, again, are corporeal 'mechanisms', not incorporeal!]

  31. Penrose has suggested that consciousness may arise due to the collapse of wave functions in a quantum coherent medium like the microtubules, or that it may arise from a Goedel type complexity. It is possible that the coupling between the brain and the condensate is due to incorporeal mechanisms like those. [Ah, a 'trickle' of understanding begins to creep into the mind, in this gentleman's use of the word 'incorporeal'!]

  32. I had hoped that you might have an inkling on how the condensate influences the brain, and how the brain detects microwaves. But instead of addressing that question, you accuse me of Newtonian thinking. My training at Harvard was in quantum mechanics and electromagnetic theory. [Standard 'Newtonian' training!] So I at least do not think my thinking is obsolete. I admit to not being an expert in Bose-Einstein condensates. But I have read everything published about axions and I cannot make a connection between that and your fundamental QUFD particles. [Because he has only read about corporeality, not incorporeality!]

  33. So I am left in my paper to argue: (1) from the presumed reality of Remote Viewing, OBE, NDE, ADE, and apparitions (2) that an invisible medium, most likely a BEC in dark matter, must exist, and that consciousness must exist in it, and somehow couple to the brain. I will refer to your work as the most complete model that explains all that. But that certain aspects of your model, like temperatures below absolute zero [Where in the h--- have I ever, in QUFD, said such a thing? No place that I know of!], axions with electric charge ["... electric charge" has been this gentleman's 'interpretation', NOT mine!] and the lack of a coupling mechanism between axions and the brain [incorporeal, NOT corporeal!] will impair the acceptance of your model in the scientific community. I am sorry to have to leave it there. But from your responses to my questions, I do not see any other recourse.

    With the utmost respect,
    Richard

    (22 Dec 16:35)
    Richard Ruquist

  34. Okay, Richard, now you have me going, as to your inquiries. So I am going to refer you to further pages on my website (some over 10 years old already), that may further your understanding of QUFD and answer your persistent questions for 'provable', corporeal 'facts'. [Not that I intend to provide corporeal 'facts', but I do hope to have this gentleman eventually realize that the search for provable facts in Incorporeality is futile!] (And sorry to do it this way - by reference to QUFD - but my remembrances of things are somewhat fading sometimes [when you indicate you graduated from Harvard, that same year I retired from the U.S. Air Force, after working for NASA and much more!]. In fact, would you believe that I didn't know a damn thing about QUFD UNTIL I READ my website! I even had to re-read many of the pages several times before I could understand what the h--- was going on! So I do sympathize with Readers who are approaching it for the first time!) [Dr. Ruquist makes no comment about this and many other statements of subsequent emails, tending to indicate that he may have read such statements but certainly does not understand the content nor the context of what the statement says!]

  35. Okay, first of all, CHRISTMAS GREETINGS and a Xmas 'present' for you! Incidentally, this 'present'-link may give you something further to think about in relation to your understanding of Reality! (And you may be pleasantly surprised at the reference/source of the 'present' that is 'quoted'!) Here it is: (Be sure to include the entire URL, including the bookmark-section at the end. Then, when you have arrived at the section - of the Main QUFD document, incidentally - look for the particular link with 'Santa Claus' in the link name.) http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qufd2.html#pangs.

  36. Next, I wish to direct your attention to several other pages that you may find pertinent: Following the previous section ("Pangs...") in the Main QUFD document, look for "A few Notes to the Readers of this document:" Passing over the first 2 or 3 'technical' notes, you may find the remaining notes pertinent to your understanding of Consciousness from a holistic and Spiritual perspective.

  37. Next, following this previous section, look for "Gather 'round, all you 5 year-old 'scientists'!" Reading there, follow the links (through 2 pages) to "Welcome to the Physics of Reality 101!" and read on from there. (These pages are actually over 10 years old already!)

  38. From there (assuming you forego the "Philosophy of QUFD" section which follows next on the Main QUFD document), I'll direct you back to the Opening Page (however you can get there, from wherever you may be, noting that there is a link to the Opening Page at the bottom of every webpage!) On the Opening Page, about half-way down the page, look for the section "The content of this website has been adapted from [my book, "KNOWING..."]" Immediately following, read the section referring to a 'quotation' (which immediately precedes "PUBLISHERS"). The quotation and commentary may give you something further to 'think about' relative to Society's (and the "Establishment's") acceptance of the Realities of QUFD.

  39. (Okay, this paragraph/section is an insertion to the original material of this communique, but the Man Upstairs just 'showed' it to me this morning and I feel it is of prime importance to your understanding of the basic Principles of QUFD.) And those basic Principles do include several 'postulations' (or whatever you might call them) - which are found on numbers of QUFD pages - that the present 'scientific establishment' may just not be ready to accept, EVEN THOUGH their 'concepts' DO DERIVE FROM works OF our most eminent theoretical physicists of today and yesterday. (As an example, the earlier pages of QUFD were submitted for publication - actually, an 'Enquiry therefor' was submitted - to the I.O.P, the British scientific publishing house, the Institute of Physics, about 8 years ago (I think, maybe more recently). The response, from the Chairman of the Selections Committee, was that QUFD was of a 'speculative' nature and not apropos for serious scientific publication, and that I should Query such other 'publications' that might accept 'speculative', i.e. 'fantasy', material.) Incidentally, all of that 'Query' and the Chapter 'Excerpts' submitted with it (from my e-book, "KNOWING ...", which you were interested in), can be found on my website, starting at: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/knowing.html.

  40. Okay, back to the further specific 'details', or 'concepts', of QUFD which may be 'speculative' as far as the 'establishment' is concerned.

  41. First of all, one of the primary 'keys' to QUFD is, of course, Einstein's Unified Field of the quantum forces, INCLUDING ZERO GRAVITY. QUFD postulates that ALL forces are thusly UNITARY, IN A BEC CONDENSATE, a 'ground-state', which is the basis, or starting point, for further 'actions' or 'dynamics', OF THOSE FORCES IN 'REACTION' to 'inputs' thereto, whether long-term or short-term, AND INCLUDING the 'non-locality' aspect OF a zero-gravity condition (past/present/future being 'unitary'). Anyway, postulating the existence OF such a UNITARY field, QUFD then 'speculates' (if that is what it may be called) that such a 'field' exists throughout the Cosmos AS 'dark matter', OR Infinite Consciousness (God).

  42. Now, QUFD further 'speculates' that IF such a 'field' shall exist, it shall exist as a 'dimension', or Unity of such condensate, in and of itself, but also that it may be composed of, or 'create', many sub-dimensions, of such a field of Consciousness, the differentiating factors of a 'dimension' being the three 'components' thereof that field of Consciousness, namely temperature, density and Sentience/Spirit. Thusly the individuality of these three components shall produce such dimensional 'entities' as a rock, an ant, a planet, a galaxy, a black hole, a pulsar (OF the appropriate CORPOREAL 'temporality'/temperature, density AND 'Sentience/Spirit'), AND a human being. Actually, going to Carl Jung's further contributions to QUFD, as to the 'levels' of consciousness - family, tribe, race, etc., down to the Collective Consciousness of all of humanity - a gigantic 'condensate' itself - we can further 'speculate' as to not only the various 'dimensions' that can be created as 'perturbation-Life-forms' (Complex-Adaptive Systems and Chaos theory) within the 'dimension' of humanity, but we can also 'speculate' as to that gigantic condensate-dimension OUTSIDE of humanity, which, since being 'divorced' from the 'good graces' of Infinite Consciousness, has been forever 'intruding' on and in the lives of God's 'children', humanity, that 'dimension' being, of course, the Luciferian Complex of NEGATIVE consciousness.

  43. Now then, QUFD further 'speculates' that this gigantic condensate-field of Infinite Consciousness DOES NATURALLY EXTEND into, and suffuse the functioning OF, EACH AND EVERY glial-cell which surrounds a synaptic junction within the human brain, contributing to Prigogine's temperature/temporality 'speculation' of 98.6F 'operational temporality' OF the human condensate-dimension, but also thusly enabling, at such an interface-point between corporeality and incorporeality - the nucleus of the glial cell - the further 'dynamics' of incorporeally 'triggering' the NaH2 molecular-string, to start the 'feedback loop', and the 'reception' - IN the incorporeality of the glial nuclei - OF the microwave signal from the receiving dendrite signalling completion of the corporeal 'activity' OF that synapse. [The foregoing is a complete yet brief, answer to this gentleman's persistent questioning regarding the details of a 'mechanism' between brain and mind, and yet he, in all subsequent emails, does not even acknowledge that he has read or understood what has just been related to him, the very 'mechanism' which he says he is looking for!] And since Sentience can amalgamate and 'KNOW' WHAT IS the 'function' (within the corporeal brain) OF each and every synapse, it therefore has 'consciousness' OF its overall control of the brain via its 'Knowing' of the RESULTS OF ITS ACTIONS. Now, granted, knowing the functioning of each and every synapse IS, however, NOT the sum of it. The Soul - upper Mind condensate - ALSO receives 'input' from other condensates BEYOND the 'local Mind' condensate (other human beings, Society, the Collective, and more), all contributing TO that 'KNOWING' of and by the Sentience of that local-mind condensate, AS TO what goes-on within the individual human brain AS THE RESULT OF the supervisory-actions of the Soul via the self, in 'controlling' that, and each and every, synapse of the human brain.

  44. WHICH MEANS that Infinite Consciousness IS ALSO AWARE of the 'incursions' of negative-consciousness, the 'fingers-of-negativity', that Cooper-pairing 'sandwich' themselves [referring to the negative axion particles thereof such 'fingers-of-negativity'] between upper and lower Mind which affect, influence, and re-route, the normal phase-space-shift functions between Soul and self, contributing to the aberrations of consciousness that are eventually felt within the human brain. All this info is detailed on my webpages, but mostly in the Main document.

  45. Now, let me mention further some other concepts that may be anathemic to the 'establishment', but which are 'keys' to the functioning of QUFD. Genetics says [and this mention here, of genetics, as one of the 'keys' to understanding QUFD, is apparently overlooked by Dr. Ruquist, in his reading of this email, for he does not deign to acknowledge it in his reply. However, in a later email, when genetics is mentioned again as a 'key' of QUFD, he is totally 'surprised' and perplexed by the inclusion, stating that genetics has no relationship whatsoever to quantum physics - actually, his quantum 'mechanics'!] there is a large gene pool within humanity for which they have yet to find a purpose, CORPOREALLY, within the human body. QUFD 'speculates' that there are genes which contribute TO THE CREATION OF MIND, which is, of course, INCORPOREAL, and thusly NOT 'seeable'. And contained within the pool of such genes, there exists a specific gene(s) THAT PRODUCE THE quantum incorporeal 'dynamic' OF phase-space-shifting, of a condensate-ground-state's actions, 'dynamics', IN RELATION TO other condensates, or dimensions, including between the separate condensates of upper and lower Mind, BUT ALSO capable OF phase-space-shifting TO condensates BEYOND the individual local-Mind (AND of being 'influenced' BY the 'incursions' OF other condensate's phase-space-shifting, i.e., Luciferian consciousness).

  46. Incidentally, as to that 'mechanism' that you are looking for 'at-action' within the glial nuclei, that supposedly affects the corporeal 'triggering' of the molecular string by the incorporeality present in the glial nuclei, maybe it is a phase-space-shifting of incorporeal consciousness that, in effect, triggers the NaH2 molecule to be '0n' or 'Off' (Danah Zohar didn't specify a 'mechanism' contributing to this 'On-Off' operation, but I presumed it a nominal function of incorporeality)? In conjunction with this, can the 'establishment' possibly encompass the 'concept' of a MATURE human mind being able to phase-space-shift its consciousness to another 'dimension'? Incidentally, as an aside, you might find interesting, in Father Jerome's DICTIONARY, the definition of the word/term 'dimensionality'.

  47. Oh, one more thing. I think it was in the 'Incorporeality' document (in the SHORTCUT MENU listing of the QUFD Opening Page), that I posed the question, "What is the normal action of a human mind which is the same as that quantum 'dynamic' taking place in a cosmic black-hole?" The answer, of course, is phase-space-shifting.

  48. So, there are some things about QUFD, as a 'formulation', that I admit may be questionable, or 'speculative', or radical, to the scientific 'establishment', including a few more 'concepts' within QUFD that presently escape my awareness. HOWEVER, they ALL have basis IN theoretical research or otherwise of reputable scientists of today and yesterday, and the problem these 'concepts' present, IS THAT THEY DO 'work', or function, AS the Principle thereof does so specify, BUT THEY ARE UNSEEABLE, they are INCORPOREAL, THEY ARE functions and 'dynamics' OF CONSCIOUSNESS, and until the 'establishment' can accept the Reality of Incorporeality ... Well, I dunno?
    (End of Insertion Update)

  49. THEN, if you really want to 'get radical', from a sociological-discipline perspective, as to the RESULTS - corporeal 'results' - of Incorporeality, throughout present-day Society, I'll refer you to my QUALIA 3 document (listed in the SHORTCUT MENU down the page, of the Opening Page), and its accompanying PSYCHOSOCIOLOGICAL DICTIONARY, which derives from the eminent research of one of our greatest Sociologists, Dr. Pierre Bourdieu, of the College de France, in Paris.

  50. One more page, IF you can stretch your imagination, to envision a 'Utopian world', in the QUFD model. This is the QUALIA 9 document, in the QUALIA series on the Opening Page.

  51. From there you are on your own. Most any page has pertinent further links to additional reading which may help to fill-in further your understanding of QUFD and QUFD Principles, AS APPLIED across the spectrum of humanity and beyond! BUT, as I say several times on my pages, "DON'T LISTEN to me! Find out what is REALITY for yourself! LOOK WITHIN, for only YOU 'Know' the answers, to anything you might ask!"

  52. Be Well, and as I like to say, as the kids of today might say, "May the Force Be With You!"

    Aum, Peace, Amen!
    Jerome

    (22 Dec 17:05)
    Richard

  53. Okay, just got your reply today after I had already mailed you my next commentary, 'Further further'. Perhaps that communiqu‚ will answer some of your further questions.

  54. I'm a bit rushed for time today, so I am printing out this current reply of yours, which I haven't read in its entirety yet. But I started on it and will respond here to your question about Einstein. Again, the situation is as I have stated before, that I am weak on being able to provide direct bibliographical references, but some of the material is INDIRECT, via science writers, in the likes of Physics Today, Nature, Science, Scientific American and such. As to Einstein, the connection is NOT specifically to Einstein himself but rather to his collaboration with Satyendra Bose. So, in reality, it is published, popular info, on BEC, Bose-Einstein Condensates, where such content may come from, and you are probably well aware of all such sources.

  55. Let me read the rest of your recent message as I have time to do so and I will get back to you as the circumstances do dictate. Incidentally, Thanks for your interest in QUFD. I've had numbers of graduate students and others inquire before about certain aspects of QUFD but I never heard to what extent they may have carried their interests other than a few informants who mentioned bringing QUFD to their courses as teaching material and such, but the extent to which such may have made any impact on the 'scientific establishment' is unknown. As far as I know, QUFD has been recognized, awarded and accoladed around the world, on the Internet, but as such, it is yet merely 'a needle in the haystack' of all the stuff that is out there on the Web. Maybe your mention, in some way, at the conference, will at least help to raise awareness of the possibilities of QUFD to 'inform' people of something more than they presently think is Reality! For that, I sincerely Thank You!

  56. Oh, incidentally, I have already previously emailed Gell-Mann notice of the existence of the QUFD website. Whether he has read it or not, I do not know. Over the years I have also notified other respected scientists, such as ... I'm trying to remember names here ...Kannraku (a Japanese name, I think)??? I think he is associated with SUNY, but never heard. Gotta go!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (22 Dec 17:57)
    Richard

  57. Only got a quick minute here. Am still trying to remember the physicist's name at SUNY. Maybe it was Michio Kaku or something like that. He was also on a Panel of about 6 physicists, including maybe Stephen Hawking, in a series about Space, the Universe, Astrophysics, which was produced by WGEN-TV(?), New York, and was broadcast on PBS. Not sure if it was a NOVA series, as I didn't see it.

  58. Will possibly get back to you after I read your last message.

    Jerome

    (23 Dec 13:07)
    Richard

  59. Whoa! Sorry if I have offended your sensibilities, however unintentionally. I did not realize, if so, that I was 'castigating' you as a 'Classical Newtonian'. I used the term, but I did not think I was implying you. I was merely stating fact, in that a number of scientists ... Well, maybe only the ones I happened to be exposed to ... I think including Papp and Crick, among others, definitely differentiated between Classical Newtonians and Quantum Mechanics, and I have voiced those 'differentiations' a number of times in my webpages, so it was quite normal for me to repeat the 'obvious', as to my 'thinking' about the 'establishment' and such. But, I assure you, I was not implying any denigration of yourself as an 'establishmentarian'. In fact, if you were, I am quite sure I would never have heard from you after even the slightest perusal of QUFD.

  60. Okay, bluntly, I am not here to castigate your intentions nor to vent apologies therefor. So let me further address your latest concerns, as voiced in your latest reply. And please do forgive me if I do appear 'blunt' in regard to some of these 'concepts', but to me they are so 'old hat', so reasonable and rational, so much the 'truth', that sometimes I feel that it is beyond my comprehension how anyone cannot see the obviousness of such a system as I have so described (and it IS a 'System' ... a most Glorious and Wonderful System, of Consciousness, Cosmic universality, humanity AND Infinite Consciousness)! And as to the 'truth' of it all, I have written numerous pages about 'Truth', but within QUFD 'rationality' there can ONLY BE that, and those, 'Truths' that originate from Incorporeality, from the Positivity of Spirit, and from the scientific 'Reality' of positive axion Consciousness (NOT the negative Luciferian variety)! That is where I 'come from'.

  61. And, Sorry again, but my entire Life and works ... just as I would imagine are yours ... are 'vested' in the Realities that I have put forth on my pages. But also, I know that I cannot exclusively 'attribute' these concepts to myself alone (nor any supposed 'aggrandizement' in relation thereto), because, for some reason, every time I 'turn around', pick up a newspaper, turn on the TV, or anything such, THERE IS SOMEBODY, or some event, situation, or 'truth', BEING VOICED, in correlation of that which I have put forth in QUFD, and not only from the present but also from the past. Papp, Crick, Penrose and many others, in the 'truths' of their deepest consciousness, verify what I have said in some way. And then there is the 'common man', who 'knows' so much, and yet is attributed so little. Such as the Christmas 'present' that I sent you, with the 'musings', the 'knowing', from one's heart AND SOUL, that what he, that publisher of old, was replying to Virginia, WAS THE TRUTH!

  62. So much for that. To your further 'points'. Overall, perhaps my last email may have finally answered some of those persistent 'systemic' details that you were looking for. But I still 'detect' a yearning to have it 'explained' somehow in CORPOREALITY. Let me challenge you, as a quantum physicist, TO SEE ..."Ha, Ha, but it is 'unseeable'!" ... Okay, to 'accept', NOT WHAT I HAVE TOLD YOU, but instead, TO FIND, within yourself, within your SOUL, the 'possibility' THAT INCORPOREALITY, and its 'dynamics', MAY EXIST! Okay, then you will probably say, "But how do I prove it?" HEY! THAT IS your 'challenge', because that Incorporeality, that Consciousness, that Spirit, IS WITHIN YOU ... all you have to do is realize the Reality of such, and then GIVE IT VOICE! But DON'T say it came from me! I DO NOT TELL anyone anything but that which they need to 'know', which, in Reality, comes from within themselves, AS TO THE ACTUAL DETAILS and the Realities thereof. And I know you have already said that you can encompass the 'concept' of Incorporeality, but have you REALLY 'accepted' it UNTIL YOU CAN SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAIN IT!

  63. Richard, that is how it was for me, as well, UNTIL I 'found' the scientific explanations for all those concerns inside me that I KNEW were TRUE, but I just wasn't 'buying' someone else's 'fantastic explanations' of Reality. I HAD to see the logic, the reasoning, the rationality, THE SYSTEMICS ... coming from a 'Systems' background, as a Systems Engineer, for NASA and much more ... myself, and then APPLY those 'systemics' TO the 'Big Picture'. In other words, the 'Quest' was, as it is for many, "WHAT IS THE TRUTH?" When you can find your own answer to that, "... You'll be a Man, my Son!", as Rudyard Kipling (was it?) said. NOW, I am NOT saying that you are anything less than a Man, Richard, so don't be offended. However, there is the 'Principle' in QUFD that until humanity has eliminated the Cooper-pairing of the presently configured individual local-Mind, we are, ALL of us, but yet 'children', operating under an Immaturity of Mind.

  64. Okay, I'll quit my 'ramblings' and get to the 'points' of your reply. "Why should we expect that the brain can detect axions?" Again, I refer you to the 'systemics' and 'dynamics' of Incorporeality. And I do believe the 'systemics' of the glial cell nuclei, that I mentioned previously, may have answered your next few 'points' as to 'coupling' between condensates. (Please, Richard, think 'dynamics', rather than 'mechanisms'. Just a suggestion.)

  65. As to Sikivie and such, I have previously noted that the 'field', that reaches to the heart, the nucleus, of the glial cell, IS NOT an electromagnetic field, BUT IS THE UNITARY QUANTUM FIELD OF THE INFINITE condensate of Consciousness, and IS, therefore, by its very nature, not only Incorporeal, but also UNITARY OF ALL THE QUANTUM FORCES, including zero Gravity! And this 'point of criticality', this 'perturbation', of that condensate of Consciousness, OCCURS IN the nucleus of the human glial cell, AT A DENSITY and 'existence' WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to CORPORALLY 'see' it, being, after all, INcorporeal!

  66. Axion particles. I trust by now you have read why I have called the particle of Consciousness an Axion. As I said, IF anyone can 'attribute' any other 'modern' particle, by name, to the particles of Consciousness, SO BE IT! Incidentally, I don't remember the scientist's name, who did in fact 'name' the actual Axion particle, but I understand that he named it after the Axion Laundry Soap that he happened to be using to do his laundry. So what! Doesn't change the Reality of that which he was describing! And if someone can more adequately 'attribute' another quantum particle to Consciousness, they are Welcome to do so! So IF someone has reliably, and accurately, 'discovered' attributes of the quantum axion particle that may be inconsistent with the Realities of Incorporeal Consciousness ... Well then, maybe it does need a new name. BUT that will NOT change the facts of that particle's 'attributes' and Realities IN RELATION TO Incorporeal Consciousness!

  67. So that is my answer, Richard, and maybe I have answered your concerns and maybe not. I can only reply to that which is put forth with that which is within me, as a PART OF that Infinite Consciousness from which we all do derive ourselves. If the answer is not sufficient, I believe the ancient wisdom does say that maybe the question needs to be re-examined. But, as to QUFD, it is what I have Given to All, and I do only Trust that it is of benefit to One and All!

    (Additional insert)

  68. Whoa! The Guy Upstairs must really think well of your intentions, Richard, because here it is 2 AM in the morning again and He wishes to provide a Final Word. In regard to your concern about 'answering the questions of doubters' ... (it just occurs to me that Christ also told someone the same thing ... I dunno!) Anyway, the point is that such is why I stress the need for you to 'Find Out for Yourself', in whatever way may satisfy that 'Quest', that longing, that certainty, within yourself, as ONLY such may be 'Knowable' to You, that you HAVE found the 'Truth', to whatever the Question is that you have asked! (If you haven't already done so, you may find it of interest to read my document http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Apologia.html, listed just above the 'Pangs of the Heart' section near the top of the Main QUFD document and on several other pages, for the reasons why I 'emphasize' such words/concepts/terms as 'Truth' sometimes in my writings, which may be a somewhat 'variance' from the nominal defining statements of a standard English dictionary. And a further 'Apologia' here, in this regard, because the reality is that many times I have found dictionaries to be 'insufficient', even to the extent of having to go beyond the standard Oxford in order to 'define' a word, a term, or even to 'create' a new 'definition' to a word, if the dictionary should prove 'insufficient' to defining what I KNOW to be the 'True' definition of that which I am trying to define, or of what I really 'mean'.)

  69. Anyway, the point is that when you DO have, or have thusly found 'your own answer', FROM WITHIN YOURSELF, from your own KNOWING, from your own Soul (as some might say, from the 'goodness of your own heart') ... THEN, you do NOT need to 'worry' about those 'doubters', those 'questioners', BECAUSE you can surely answer them from the STRENGTH OF YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS, from that Consciousness within you that I call 'KNOWING', because it does NOT come from you, but it really comes from 'beyond yourself' (beyond your 'self', the 'me' of the lower Mind, as Carl Jung might so classify such), but does actually come from your Soul and beyond, from the Consciousness and TRUTH of Incorporeality, from that Positivity, that Positive Consciousness, of Infinite Consciousness (God). So, whether you read and re-read QUFD how many times, AND THEN 'seek further', to 'clarify' your own necessity to truly 'understand' THAT WHICH 'IS', by and through your own additional research of others AND FROM Consciousness ...... and by this I mean, by 'Being There', Being 'In the Moment' (as defined by QUFD), with yourself and with God, where you are NOT 'listening' to ANYONE ELSE (NO 'expert', NO 'authority' and such), but you have 'blanked' your Mind and thusly can directly 'access' that Consciousness, that KNOWING, which only comes from your Soul and Beyond! Incidentally, some might call this 'meditation'. Others might say that 'meditation' is just 'sitting', for hours upon hours, or just walking to the door, but taking all day to get there! WHATEVER, the point IS, 'Be With Yourself', block out all that other 'source-ery', because it is really 'sorcery', from Lucifer, perhaps! Find the 'answers' from Within Yourself! THEN you will have no 'worries' about 'answering the doubters', because you will KNOW the 'answer' to anything that might be asked! And that 'answer', WHATEVER it is, will NOT 'reside' IN YOUR MEMORY, in the memory-banks of the 'self', in the lower mind's 'accumulation of fact' and whatever else it might be called, BUT WILL ACTUALLY COME DIRECTLY, 'In The Moment', from your (S)elf/Soul and from that KNOWING beyond your (S)elf, perhaps from other 'dimensions' such as the Collective Consciousness of all of humanity, and maybe even from Infinite Consciousness HimSelf! But one thing you can be assured of, that by 'Being In the Moment', whatever the answer is that comes, IS the right answer, and does NOT come from negative, Luciferian consciousness or otherwise, but does derive from POSITIVITY, from Infinite Consciousness!

  70. Richard, I trust that I may not have been 'overbearing' or anything such in this reply, and that I certainly have not offended your 'sensibilities' in any way. What I have put forth is NOT 'religious', coming NOT from ANY man-made 'religion', but is only that which comes from my Spirit, my Consciousness, in Reply to You, to your 'questions' and to your 'needs', as I have felt them. If you might feel otherwise about such 'answers', then I am sorry, because to me such might be a 'failure' of QUFD itself to provide the 'Service Unto All' that it was 'created' to provide and thusly I need to Know of such because it would thusly tell me that I myself do need to 'Go Back to the Source' and seek 'corrections' to my own answers! Thankfully, I haven't experienced such as yet, but I am always willing to 'Question' anything, in the search for 'That Which Is', the Truth!
    (End of Update)

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (23 Dec 19:48)

    Father Jerome

  71. Wow. What a lengthy response. This afternoon I spent an hour at a library composing an equally lengthy response to your response. But alas the guy upstairs decided that it should not be sent. When the librarian told me my hour was up and I tried to send it, my email time on Netscape had elapsed and I could not even save the draft. I had talked about my tough skin (RE: sensibilities) and my own experience of Direct Revelation and the coupling between the brain and the condensate. I think it was my direct revelation that could not be revealed???

  72. Anyway I had a little eureka that I want to share with you. Both you and I think that the condensate exists in dark matter. And we also think that the condensate must permeate our bodies as well as the galaxy. Now part of the eureka is that if the condensate is to permeate us and the earth, it must be neutral. It cannot contain electrical charge. Otherwise the earth's magnetic field would exclude it just as it excludes solar material.

  73. So the problem is to then understand your QUFD which is based on charged axions? The eureka is that the charge of QUFD does not have to be electrical charge. I have always wondered how beings could exist in dark matter without some kind of chemistry analogous to electron chemistry here, since electrons could not be part of dark matter. I think the answer is a different kind of charge. It cannot be color charge since that is based on threes. It has to be a plus or minus type charge. So my eureka is that your QUFD is based on an undetectable new type of charge of the dark matter condensate. [Here Dr. Ruquist seems to be making genuine progress in understanding QUFD and Consciousness.] Piero Scaruffi has already proposed something like this. He says that associated with every [quantum] particle is an undetectable charge "C" that comes in units of consciousness. QUFD would then say that C can be plus or minus like electrical charge.

  74. I trust from your direct revelation (either the collective consciousness or the guy above) that the fundamental particle of QUFD and the dark matter condensate has charge. And I believe that the condensate permeates our world. So the charge cannot be electrical. It must be something like the supersymmetric twin of electrical charge.

  75. Now if every physical particle contains units of C as well as electrical charge, and the condensate contains pure C, it is likely that what you call 'criticality' in one or the other medium, which I take to be the collapse of wave functions, will provide for the transfer of energy from one medium to the other. If so, then that mechanism, as I like to call it, is consistent with the thinking of Penrose except for the addition of a dark matter condensate. That is, wave collapse transfers information and energy to and from the axion condensate. [Dr. Ruquist may have arrived at his own valid and 'mechanical' explanation here as to the interface between corporeality and incorporeality, in answer to his persistent question of what exactly 'triggers' the switching of the H2 molecule of the synapse and the resulting microwave 'stimulation' of the condensate on the receiving side. This does not seem to be in conflict with QUFD Principle, that quantum waves convert to quantum particles and vice versa, transferring energy and information between corporeality and incorporeality.]

  76. I like to think of quantum things in analogy to EM waves and photons. [Which are, however, corporeal, not incorporeal!] EM waves are the wave functions of photons. Detectors like the human eye collapse the EM waves into photons which then couple energy into electrons. The wave collapse is down to the Planck scale for both the EM waves and the electron waves, where they can couple because at the Planck scale all waves are the same (like the unified field).

  77. My problem that I keep asking you is how could collapse of axion waves in the condensate influence (ie, make them collapse) either EM waves or electron waves, or vice versa? However, if all particles contain this undetectable charge "C", which must have associated C wave functions or fields, then collapse of C fields in the condensate would likely collapse C fields in matter (having the same wavelengths since the connection does seem to be a resonant effect). Well, that is an untestable hypothesis. [But incorporeality IS untestable!]

  78. But you seem to be saying that there is no testable hypothesis. So I am just wondering if any of what I just said rings true with..?? Is the mechanism I described a possibility?

  79. Think I'll stop now before the higher ups decide that I have said too much.

    Regards,
    Richard

    (24 Dec 14:59)

    Richard

  80. Just signed in my email and see a reply from you. I haven't looked at it yet. Here is the latest reply that I prepared this morn. If there is anything further after I look at your reply, I will get back to you. Hope your Holidays are Joyous and that, as the kids say, "May The Force Be With You!"

    (Paste)
    Richard

  81. Sorry to persist as to your concerns (Hey, it's Holiday Time! I should be giving myself and yourself a Holiday 'break'!), but another possibly pertinent point just came to me this morn. And this relates to the comment that I previously made to you, to think 'dynamics' rather than 'mechanisms'. The reason for this is that 'dynamics' is an important component of Incorporeality and another 'key' to understanding QUFD and QUFD principles. And this relates primarily to the BEC condensate 'attributes' of QUFD, which are detailed in the Main QUFD document, briefly: COHERENCE of the condensate's ground-state; SELF-ORDERING of the condensate in response to any and all 'inputs' to the condensate, whether long-term or merely instantaneous and one-time-only; ADAPTABILITY, in its self-ordering complexity, again to any and all 'inputs'; and further BEC attributes, as postulated by modern BEC researchers, such as the 'attribute' (previously noted) put forth by Prigogine that a condensate may exist at such temperature-density 'locations' as the human mind (98.6F), or other such as pulsars (tremendously high temperature-densities), each such temperature-density 'location' thusly contributing to the specific nature of the 'entity', whatever it may be. Now, regardless of the fact that such theoretical research exists, and may even be classified as 'speculative', even if coming from such respected researchers as Prigogine, the point is that such things may still be anathemic to Classical Newtonians and the 'Establishment'.

  82. Anyway, to get back to my comment to think 'dynamics' IS BECAUSE the basis of QUFD stipulates that the 'inputs' to the condensate (ANY condensate), AND the self-ordering, adaptive 'actions' OF SENTIENCE within any condensate, ARE 'DYNAMICS' THAT MAY EXIST AT THAT INSTANT of 'decision-making' by the condensate, AND THEN NEVER, EVER, come into EXISTENCE AGAIN! This is a differentiating 'characteristic' of Incorporeality versus Corporeality, and such is why Incorporeal actions/functions are 'dynamic', or instantaneous, as compared to Corporeal actions/functions, which can be 'repeated', or can occur over time, and thusly are 'mechanisms'. So the further 'complication' here for the 'Establishment' is that Incorporeal, condensate 'dynamics', CANNOT BE REPEATED, probably EVER, in that they are based exclusively on the instantaneous, one-time-only, 'attributes' of the condensate of Consciousness in response to such 'inputs' as DID EXIST at that specific instant of temporality/intemporality of BOTH the brain AND mind AS WELL AS 'inputs' to Incorporeality from BEYOND THE MIND, and beyond the Corporeal brain!

  83. Another consideration is the 'non-locality' characteristic of the condensate of consciousness, QUFD principle postulating that the condensate is, of course, a Unitary Field of the quantum forces, INCLUDING zero Gravity, making the very actions/dynamics of the condensate 'non-local' in the functioning thereof. This means that at any point where a portion of the condensate shall exist (such as in the glial nuclei), the 'dynamics' that might take place there are INTEMPORAL, having NO Time or Space 'existence' other than that appropriately 'correlative' to such intemporal characteristics of zero-gravity as may exist INSTANTANEOUSLY. Although, as I imply in my 'lecture4.html' document on the Quantum Physics of Time, THE RESULTS OF such instantaneous 'dynamics' DO EXIST IF 'OBSERVED' (quantum mechanical principle), observation in the PRESENT 'moment' bringing into existence, 'creating', past and future 'correlates'.

  84. Again, the 'Establishment' will probably consider such theorization null and void, EVEN IF such CAN BE 'experienced' IN CONSCIOUSNESS BUT NOT, necessarily, REPEATED, EXCEPT IN CONSCIOUSNESS! And can they accept the fact that the consciousness of the human mind could be 'influenced' by 'correlations' from elsewhere in the Cosmos, elsewhere in Incorporeality, elsewhere in 'dimensionality' (even though any number of researchers have already written about 'parallel worlds'?)

  85. So much for this point. I want to add one thing more, regarding 'Newtonians' and the 'Establishment'. I guess I do have a 'wariness' about the Establishment and Newtonians, and such is why I have written about such on several of my pages. As an example, the 'sponsor', or one of the sponsors, I think, of your Quantum Mind 2003 Conference, may be a physicist associated with the Univ. of Arizona who also sponsors a Quantum Mind Forum and Newsletter (or something like that) on the Internet. I can't remember his name, but I have submitted QUFD to him previously a number of years back and have had disastrous 'replies' from him, indicating that Quantum Mind has nothing whatsoever to do with any Incorporeal 'nonsense' but that Mind is ONLY an attribute of the Corporeal BRAIN. I don't know if he may have changed his 'perspective' since then, but I thusly consider him to be a 'dyed-in-the-wool Newtonian'. In fact, somewhere I read, some time back, that 90 some % of ALL brain-mind research was dedicated to proving that 'mind' was a corporeal function of the brain, and integral TO the brain, NOT external-of the brain, or Incorporeal, as QUFD does so postulate. So, all I am saying, is beware, even at the Quantum Mind Conference, in that many researchers DO HAVE THEIR 'VESTED Interests', in continued research (and the funding thereof) that 'anticipates' Mind finally, some day, being 'discovered' to be an integral function of the brain and CORPOREAL in substance and 'mechanism'! As a Physicist of the Quantum, I trust that your 'awareness' is appropriate thereto your expanded-perspective of Reality AS DESCRIBED BY Quantum Principle, and therefore, all I say, is 'look-out' for Newtonians!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (24 Dec 15:35)
    Richard

  86. Okay, Richard, I just read your reply. Here are my thoughts:
  87. Congratulations! With your more-up-to-date 'awareness' (than myself) of what is going on out there in quantum research, perhaps you are right as to hypothesizing the 'C Particle', as an explanation of Consciousness, regardless of the fact that QUFD distinguishes the difference between Positive and Negative Consciousness as the difference between positive and negative axion charge, AS WELL AS each such 'charge-existence' itself ALSO differentiating between 'dimensionality', specifically Positive Consciousness (and positive axion particles) being of Infinite Consciousness (God) [condensate] and Negative Consciousness (and negative axion particles!) being of the Luciferian Complex of consciousness and dimensionality. Additionally, the Cooper-pairing of your 'C particle' consciousness in the human mind creates, or influences, the modification of positive and negative whole-integer-spin particles into half-integer-spin particles, AS LONG AS they are 'sandwiched' into that Cooper-paired configuration with the upper-Mind and lower-mind condensates.

  88. One thing more here, real quick (I'm being summoned to the Christmas feast table!!!) You may still need to think 'dynamics', more so than you are yet doing. I can understand your orientation to EM theory and such (been there myself, yet also holding an FCC First Class License with Radar Endorsement, the highest FCC license available, as well as holding a Ham Radio License since I was 9 years old, and having the experience of almost 30 years in Telecommunications, including NASA, top-secret U.S. Government service in telecommunications, being on the development team at GTE Lenkurt that created the PCM cell-phone technology that is wide-spread today, and more! All this is detailed in my Vitae pages on my website.), but I want to repeat what I have put forth previously. Consciousness, Incorporeality, Spirit, Infinite Consciousness and the condensates thereof, ARE UNIFIED, UNITARY FIELDS, of the quantum forces, NOT INDIVIDUAL E or M 'fields'. So all 'dynamics' taking place in such a condensate HAVE TO BE viewed FROM A UNITARY quantum-forces perspective, NOT from any perspective dealing with any one or more quantum forces INDIVIDUALLY!

    Got to go EAT! See ya later!
    Jerome

    (24 Dec 17:40)
    Father Jerome

  89. Thanks for your endorsement of the "C" idea. I in turn endorse your 'dynamics' and do not have any quarrel with it because you have expressed it so completely. But that is just why I have focused on the connection between the condensate and the brain. The EM fields can be a condensate, but I do not think they are consciousness as they disappear rapidly. Consciousness has to be, or be in, the axion condensate which does have permanence.

  90. Since that is kinda resolved, do you have any thoughts on the possibility of hologram properties of the condensate? Since memories fade away, I expect that the condensate has such properties. Then there are also possible entanglement properties. At zero order the entire condensate being liken to one atom is entirely entangled. But as you suggest that the Cooper pairs can redirect thoughts or impulses, I suspect that the entanglement is not complete.

  91. I have many questions and you have the answers. Please forgive me for exploiting the situation.

  92. I have been searching for possible charges other than electrical charge for the condensate. The Ramond-Ramond charge is one possibility. Supercharge is another, both from superstring theory. But I do not yet understand their properties - like are they electrical or something else? The axion has been described by Cramer as geometrically like an electric field parallel to a magnetic field, and therefore can connect to photons. But I have not found any account that is more detailed than just these words. Sorry to show my ignorance.

    Sincerely,
    Richard

    (24 Dec 18:50)
    Richard

    I'm bulging at the damn waist, dammit!

  93. Hey, I use library network machines too at times. I'm used to being shutoff like that, so if I feel that my writing is going to be lengthy, I do it ahead of email-time in an editor or processer and then paste it into Netscape via WordPad from directory or floppy. But if I do write something in email, when I finish it, before I would hit the 'Send' button, I select/highlite (CTRL-A) all the text and then hit CTRL-C, copying that text into the Clipboard, just in case my email has decided to log itself out already. Some times I have had to use that Clipboard contents, pasting it (CTRL-V) into my Netscape email that I re-opened. But many times, when I hit the 'Send' and it tells me that my email 'session' has logged out, the dialog box gives me an option to 'login' again, and then, Lo and Behold, it automatically puts me right back to the Compose/Write Mail function and there is the email that I wanted to send, so all I have to do is hit the Send button. I've spent the last year in the Veterans Hospital in Menlo Park, California where I had 24 hour access to a small network of computers and the Internet, but in the last 2 months I've moved into an apartment in San Mateo where I have a slightly old Win98 machine but no Internet access as of yet, so I have to walk a few blocks up the street to the Library (where I used to do most of my work anyway over past years) to use the Internet. I'm used to using all kinds of machines, OS systems, platforms and such (relatively simple stuff compared to what I've used in the past with government, military and commercial. Incidentally, would you believe that the first 'computer' that I ever used, before IBM mainframes and DEC VAX even, was ... a Sperry-Rand UNIVAC, THE first ever commercial computer?) Anyway, I'm hoping to soon be connected at my apartment via either VDSL (which would give me all Cable/TV channels, plus Internet, plus phone service, out of my phone jack on the wall) OR, using my FCC License, get some 'machinery' to directly access the appropriate satellite for such (NOT DirecTV or such, reception only, but also DIRECTLY providing proprietary content TO the Internet, without using a 'hosting service', as I do now). Actually, I'd also like to have AirNet Internet service, but it is no longer available, and I have my 'suspicions' as to why. AirNet, which I have written about on my website, almost 10 years ago (see my http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/aanlbanl.html page, one of the 'Excerpts' from my e-book, "KNOWING..."), was an Internet service using quantum interferometric principles at operating levels 100 decibels below ambient noise level (BANL) which provided absolutely secure wide-band (50 Mbs) ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) Internet wireless communications (TV/video/data and more) on the FCC ISM (Industrial/Scientific/Medical) band (900-925 Mhz) over 100 miles using only milliwatts of power, so thusly no FCC license was even required for such low power. But, as I say, the company no longer exists and their website is gone, and I don't know what has happened to all the ISP and user-terminal equipment that they had available, except to think that the government possibly bought up all such highly advanced cutting-edge equipment for exclusive government use! Incidentally, as far as I know, they were the first manufacturer, over 10 years ago, to put the equivalent of a CRAY massively-parallel-processor, at billions of Terabyte processing capacity, into a chip the size of your little finger's nail!

  94. Okay, further on your points. I'm sorry, but I just have to dismiss your leptons, bosons, Beauty's and such, because, as far as I can see (and maybe you are more of a Physicist of the Quantum than I am, really!), all such does relate to CORPOREALITY, and the quantum forces EXAMINED INDIVIDUALLY, in all their aspects! (Incidentally, I've lived most of my life practically sitting on top of SLAC, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, passing over it many times on the 280 Freeway or even walking or bicycling along the length of its 'shooting-range', and years back, at an informal cocktail party, I spent several hours discussing quantum physics and SLAC with the Director of SLAC. Of course, such incidentals are really irrelevant, as to the reality of actually 'doing the work', where you may even again have me beat. But it at least gave me an informal basis for my subsequent experiences and my Life Work, as QUFD does so exemplify, although I did subsequently spend over 10 years doing my own research, bothin Corporeality AND in Incorporeality. And the result of such has been that I am not at all partial nor 'expert' in CORPOREAL quantum 'mechanics', but I AM 'qualified' in INCORPOREAL quantum 'dynamics'! I explain such in my 'Incorporeality' document.) QUFD, again, postulates a UNITARY FIELD, and the 'dynamics' thereof, so who is to say that trying to apply the quantum forces INDIVIDUALLY or NON-UNITARY ...... HAS ANY APPLICABILITY WHATSOEVER to the Unitary Field and condensate of your 'dark matter', Consciousness? I certainly can't see it. But I realize that, until physicists can encompass, accept and understand Incorporeality AS A UNITARY FIELD, they are still going to be trying to apply quantum 'mechanics', of the Corporeal, INDIVIDUAL-FIELD variety, to any and everything.

  95. And again, Incorporeality/Spirit, IS THE SOURCE of Corporeality, the Corporeal 'results' that occur in the physical/material world NOT EVEN BEING POSSIBLE without the 'dynamics' of Incorporeality/Spirit that produce those Corporeal 'results' in the first place. So, sorry, Richard, until your quantum 'Mechanics', the scientists of the CORPOREAL Quantum, can adequately and sufficiently define the 'dynamics' and realities that take place IN the Incorporeal realm, I'll stick with QUFD Principles and 'Realities' AS I HAVE BEEN SHOWN SUCH! Besides, I've 'been there, done that', as it has been called. When you can experience personally, IN CONSCIOUSNESS, the 'Reality' of being able to phase-space-shift your consciousness INTO another 'dimension' of Reality ...... Well, let's just say, I've had my own 'proof', REGARDLESS of the fact that such an 'experience' IS TOTALLY non-reproducible in Corporeality IN ANY WAY!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (24 Dec 19:07)
    Richard

  96. Real quick, because I gotta go. Hologram, Holothetics ... there is a difference. Holothetics relates to Incorporeality, and again, if you are talking about a UNITARY FIELD of the quantum forces, past/present/future are UNITARY, AND EXIST FOREVER! This is the basis of Carl Jung's Collective Consciousness of humanity, and the Akashic Records, the Hall of Records. The 'experience' that you instantaneously experience is 'recorded' FOREVER in the 'Collective' condensate and can be accessed by the individual Soul, BUT NOT THE (s)elf, the lower mind! Read several of my pages - http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/holothetics.html, and several other 'Excerpts', as well as http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lecture3.html, in the Lectures series, and, I think, a few more places, but I can't remember right off.

    Gotta go.
    Jerome

    (24 Dec 21:47)
    Richard

    Stuffed, stuffed. And not even Xmas yet!

  97. Real quick, I just want to stress a very important point, as far as I'm concerned. 'Mechanics' refers to INDIVIDUAL quantum forces and their characteristics, which I don't even want to relate to. Consciousness is a UNITARY FIELD of the quantum forces, so 'mechanics' DOES NOT APPLY to a unified field-condensate! I have tried to define the DYNAMICS within such a field to the best I can, until someone else can definitely detail what the actual 'realities' are within a unified field. (And if Einstein could not even do it mathematically, I presume it will be a while yet for such.) In the meantime, I have defined the RESULTING 'operations' within such a field as DYNAMICS, because that is what they must be, under the influence of zero gravity, where past/present/future is 'unitary'. In other words, in 'systems' terminology, I have specified the 'parameters' and such, of an infinitely complex and adaptive field, which is, as I have said, INCORPOREAL, and CANNOT BE conceived of, or experienced, EXCEPT in Spirit, in Consciousness, OR BY THE CORPOREAL OR INCORPOREAL RESULTS THEREOF!

  98. When the scientific establishment begins thinking 'dynamics' instead of 'mechanics' ... THEN possibly that particular 'dynamic' of the condensate-field that you referred to as 'direct revelation' MAY POSSIBLY enable other minds to 'see', IN CONSCIOUSNESS, any particular 'realities' of the condensate that may be of importance TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL 'QUEST' for further understanding thereof. This statement, incidentally, is not intended as any reflection upon your efforts. Hopefully, I say, you can lead the way TO an understanding BY ALL, of these very important qualities of Consciousness. And then, not only myself, but also that Guy Upstairs, will Thank you!

  99. And please, some of these questions you have asked ... I keep having to refer you to QUFD. Please read thoroughly the pages therein, as the most minute detail on any page should further your understanding thereof. And I realize that QUFD is a quite immense 'work', but if you just naturally follow the natural 'textbook' sequence, examining all 'sidebar' links appropriately for clarifying and supplemental information, your questions may be answered, AT LEAST TO THE BASICS of Incorporeality. THEN it is up to you, to go FURTHER, correlating as necessary with other researchers, and DEFINING FOR YOURSELF what your own VERY IMPORTANT INTERPRETATION OF a Unitary-Field Condensate of Consciousness REALLY IS! And by the time you have made IT YOUR OWN - NOT MINE, it will inevitably make sense and reason to you, because you will have found the TRUTH! But please do realize, that the SOURCE of that TRUTH comes from within yourself, from Incorporeality AND from Infinite Consciousness!

    May HE (the 'Force') Be With You!

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    (25 Dec 12:24)
    Father Jerome

  100. One quick question to make sure we are on the same page. By incorporeal do you not mean the wave functions? And by corporeal do you not mean the particles the wave functions collapse to? I thought that was the case but your [most recent] post has me wondering.

    Richard

    (26 Dec 9:37)
    Father Jerome

  101. More questions. I have read just about everything on your website without finding answers to these.
    1. I am concerned about what you mean by unitary field.
    1a. One possibility is that you mean the unified field which only exists at Planck scales where all particles become the same unified force, bosonic. However, since you distinguish different particles (e.g., different charge and spin), I presume this is not what you mean.
    1b. The other possibility seems more likely, that you refer to the unitary field as what exists in a Bose-Einstein condensate, BEC. This is a bunch of particles that act like a single boson in that all parts of the condensate are connected to each other by entanglement. [NOT in incorporeality! This is corporeal thinking again!] Entanglement is a word used to describe Aspects experiment or the EPR effect [Both descriptions of corporeality, NOT incorporeality!] where the creation of two particles at a point seem to remain coupled like they were one even though they fly off in opposite directions. I like the superstring theory [another corporeal 'theory', having no relationship to incorporeality or QUFD!] description of this effect. In string theory it takes 10 dimensions to make a fermion like an electron or proton. Then in Aspect or EPR experiments, where an electron or positron is made at a point, they are made in 10 dimensions. [Dr. Ruquist is here referring to corporeal time/space 'dimensions', not QUFD 'dimensions', which are condensates.] But 6 of the 10 dimensions immediately compactify. The electron and positron then fly off in opposite 3-d space. But they are still connected in the 6-d compactified space. The connection is like a 6-d string of Planck scale width that extends from one particle to the other so that anything that happens to one particle is immediately experienced by the other because they are still essentially one particle until something happens to one or the other.

  102. So that must be the essence of how a unitary field works, like all parts of it are entangled. One side of the condensate immediately feels what the other side experiences. But it has to be a little more complicated than that. From what you have said, specific parts of the condensate must be more entangled. If the whole condensate were equally entangled, then there would not be sufficient complexity for anything to happen.

  103. So there must be regions of greater entanglement that are more loosely connected to the rest of the condensate. The self (small s) condensate must contain a representation of the brain and the body and much of the outside environment. [Here again, Dr. Ruquist is beginning to get the basics of QUFD!] For example, that would allow us to know where a baseball is going when we throw it. If we then entangle that representation with the actual environment, then we are in the so-called zone where we cannot miss the basket in shooting a basketball, for example.

  104. So I see entanglement, which is strings of 6-d compactified space, as the fundamental mechanism of the unitary (forgive me for continually using that word- mechanism - but that is how I see things working, and what is most important to me right now is how things work at the microscopic level) field. [Although here the good Doctor is again quoting corporeal thinking and corporeal 'dimensions', not BEC 'dimensions'!]

  105. Memories are systems of entangled ideas and thoughts or experiences. Remember one aspect and you get the whole. But the whole can fade away, so it must be a hologram as well. [Sorry, but in dismissing Dr. Ruquist's idea of 'entanglement' as the substance of a unitary field, I must stress the facts that not only coherence but also complexity and adaptability determine the self-ordering that takes place in the unitary field, all supervised by Sentience or Spirit, IN RESPONSE TO multitudinous kinds and types of 'inputs' thereto, which I am sure does certainly preclude the definition of the term 'entanglement'. However, should this prove incorrect, I will be the first to admit it! Of course, incorporeality being as it is, nothing is 'provable'!]

  106. 2. Oops - getting carried away there. The second question concerns how your unitary particles behave. You have said that spin 1/2 axions of opposite charge can form Cooper pairs, [NO! I said Cooper-paired condensates of opposite charge can form condensates of 1/2 spin axions! This reminds me of what I have written on several of my webpages, about the Dale Carnegie Training Seminars and his books. One of the Dale Carnegie 'principles' is to repeat everything three times, because after the first time, your listener will think you have merely said what is already in the listener's mind, NOT what you have said! After the second 'repetition', your listener will think that you have said what someone else has already 'told' your listener, again NOT what you have said! After the third 'repetition', your listener MAY, possibly, finally realize and understand what you have said as something completely different from what his mind already has 'programmed' upon it!] just like electrons can in superconductors. But electrons having the same electrical charges repel each other. So I suspect that like axion charges attract and opposite axion charges repel, just the opposite behavior as electrons. [More corporeal thinking!] So the positive spin one particles all attract each other, and must be in fact totally entangled with each other. Likewise spin one negative charges attract each other, but the positive spin one charges repel the negative spin charges. That will give me some behavior to look for in my search of string theory for the unitary charges.

  107. 3. I suspect that the axion particles come in different sizes, where the finest (or highest frequency content particles - actually the particle fields) are the purest and most likely to occupy the Soul condensate, and the larger, or more gross or crude particles, as some would say, occupy the self condensate [Corporeal thinking!] and these have half-lives that are shorter than the fine particles, and therefore decay away after death, unless prayed for as you have said. [What! Where did I ever say such a thing???] The Russian microleptons also have this property, ie, see: http://www3.eu.spiritweb.org/Spirit/religion-eq-science.html
  108. One quote therefrom:
    "The study of psychic phenomena dictated the need to define the concept of the information-energy field. Its material medium, according to contemporary notions, may be a global lepton gas, consisting of extremely light particles, microleptons, with a mass of 10^-40 - 10^-30 g. Microleptons are much lighter than electrons and are capable of freely penetrating any body in the Universe. The gaps between atomic nuclei are for them just as spacious as are the holes in a fishing net for molecules of air."
    [This 'reasoning' is getting way beyond QUFD and scientific investigation, such psychic stuff bordering on 'New Age' and other such 'fantasies', certainly not QUFD and scientific!]
    The Russians claim both positive and negative influences for human thoughts which are based in the microleptons. So I think we are all talking about the same thing. They have a math theory and experiments for their particles. The details are not published as far as I know. However they do not seem to think of them as a condensate.

  109. BTW (By The Way), my unique view of the universe is that it has 26 space dimensions [again Dr. Ruquist refers to corporeal dimensionality, of the time/space definition, not incorporeal dimensionality, which is intemporal and aspacial], where 16 of them compactify to form dark energy, and 6 later compactify to form dark matter. But the 16 compactified dimensions remain entangled with the remaining dimensions for all time. The remaining 10 space dimensions then allow for the creation of fermions. [Only bosons can exist in 26 space dimensions and these bosons are the unified field (not the unitary field of the zero temperature condensate. The unified field only exists at Big Bang like temperatures or at the Planck scale where uncertainty provides for such high temperatures)]. But once the fermions are created they are forever entangled by the 16 compactified space dimensions. The 10 fermion dimensions (as in the EPR experiment) then compactify to 4-d space time. The fermion particles are produced in opposite charged pairs and are 6-d entangled fleetingly. As soon as one or the other particle interacts with the environment, the 6-d entanglement is broken (a broken symmetry), and the particles are free. Rather soon all the particles one one (1-1) charge recombine with its opposite leaving a minute residual of positive protons and negative electrons in the universe, which eventually become you and me. But you and I and the rest of the universe are still entangled by the original 16-d compactification.

  110. An interesting wrinkle is what happens to the 6 dimensions of final entanglement after recombination. What I think happens is that these strings of 6-d compactified dimensions precipitate out of space into particles called cosmic axions. Since they come from space, they are essentially motionless, at least compared to thermal velocities. So they are at absolute zero and form a galactic if not universal condensate. Since they came from fermions, they have spin 1/2, but no electric charge as the charge is retained by the freed electron or proton particles.

  111. The positive 'spin one' particles must be a product of the 16 d compactification. Same for the negative 'spin one' particles. They are spin one since they came from bosons which are spin one. The negative and positive spin one particles then repel each other as presumed above, which is then the source of the cosmological constant and the accelerating expansion of the universe. The spin one particles then have no mass and they completely fill the universe. Whereas the spin 1/2 particles have minute mass each and are localized to galaxies. Note that the ratio of dark matter mass omega to dark energy equivalent mass omega is just the ratio of 6 compactified dimensions to the 16 compactified dimensions. (I mentioned this once to Schwarz, the inventor of superstring theory, in an email. He replied, "That's amusing." Guth however pointed out that in the early much smaller universe that the ratios were much different.

  112. Really got carried away that time. Anyway, I see some consistency between my conception of the universe and yours. You have used the word dimension differently than I. I would have referred to the density, temperature and spirit of the condensate as their essential properties. But as you have said, words are no matter. What counts is what is. [This is encouraging!]

  113. So then I ask myself, what does spirit mean in terms of my thinking? I would hazard a guess that spirit means the amount of entanglement. How's that sound to you? [Well, I would leave out 'entanglement'.]

  114. Enough. I had better save this before attempting to mail it.

    Yours,
    Richard

    (Dec 26 15:00)
    Richard

  115. Was looking back over your previous comments and guess what? I'm starting to see a pattern ...... IN YOU! I think YOU'RE STARTING (or are) THINKING LIKE A 'SYSTEMS ENGINEER'. Now that 'Ultimate' Systems Engineer, the Guy Upstairs who designed it all, would be proud of you! You're starting to see the individual parameters of the 'system' of Consciousness, of dark matter, of a condensate, of A UNIFIED FIELD, NOT of individual forces acting independently OF each other OR in COMPETITION with each other, BUT ...... IN COOPERATION with each other. (And there is another 'systemic' analogy here, relating to QUFD and Unitary Theory, and that is Competition versus Cooperation, which I have written extensively about in QUFD as to the corporeal, psychological and sociological 'results' OF those 'dynamics' of Incorporeal COMPETITION of the negative-axion-charge of consciousness, or Luciferian consciousness, versus Positive-axion-charge Consciousness, coming from Infinite Consciousness, or God, which is COOPERATION, among all the fields of a UNITARY condensate of Consciousness! (The further analogy here is that the NORMAL Unitary-field-dynamic of an incorporeal condensate of dark-matter IS COOPERATION among all the particles and fields thereof, but the 'hitch', or 'fly in the ointment' here, is that Luciferian consciousness has been 'created', or come into existence, in the Nether Regions of Consciousness ...... ACTUALLY, throughout the 'Nether Regions', WHICH INCLUDES our world, Earth, thusly confirming that Lucifer IS the 'Prince' of our world, UNTIL such day as we shall 'throw him off' and get rid of his Cooper-paired 'intrusions' upon us.)

  116. Okay, disregarding the theology here, the further point IS that COOPERATION, OF ALL particles and fields, IN A UNITARY FIELD, would be the holistic and complete NORM, BUT, the Unitary 'parameters' OF that nominal field of unitary forces HAS BEEN 'perturbed', DISRUPTED, corrupted, AT THAT POINT OF CRITICALITY (in Chaos theory) defined as ...... 'LIFE', or the point at which a 'perturbation' creates A NEW CONDENSATE, or a new 'unitary field' of consciousness, a new 'ground-state'. Anyway, in Chaos theory, it is here, at the absolute edge of Chaos, the point of maximum 'tension', between Positivity and Negativity, between positive axion particles and negative axion particles (WITHIN that Unitary field, which is Unitary or coherent IN ITS WHOLENESS, its Unity, but does yet exhibit 'sworls' and areas of 'admixtures' OF those individually-coherent 'ground-states' WHICH ARE BEING 'affected' BY the 'self-ordering' and complexively-adaptive 'decision-making' functioning, or 'dynamics', OF that condensate AT such a 'point of criticality'. Thusly, it is here, at 'points of criticality' within that Unitary field, and at the boundaries BETWEEN Positivity and Negativity (between Order and Chaos), that 'LIFE' is 'created', that new condensates, that 'decisions', that mountains-on-the-landscape-of-a-ground-state, come into existence.

  117. In this respect, you might say that Chaos versus Order is a desired attribute of the Cosmos, such 'points of criticality' being the necessary point-tensions for the 'creation' of new Life and so forth, and you might be correct. BUT, the problem here is in context. IN a Unitary field, where such 'tensions' are really in control BY Sentience, such 'sworls' and 'goings-on', between Order and Chaos, are acceptable. (After all, ORDER, of and by itself, can be downright dull and non-productive, just as CHAOS, by itself, is likewise chaotic and non-productive. BUT, at the boundaries of tension, 'points of criticality', between the two ...... Hey! THAT's where things HAPPEN!) The further point here is that, such is fine in INCORPOREALITY, in the Quantum, BUT NOT IN CORPOREALITY! When quantum 'actions' start reaching into corporeality, as to the results thereof, those 'results', IN corporeality, BECOME EVIL, negative, and 'influenced' BY 'competition', rather than 'cooperation', by Negativity rather than Positivity. Again, 'results' that transpire, occur, and result in INCORPOREAL 'results', affecting other INCORPOREAL condensates, MAY BE OKAY, but 'results' that are 'created' in CORPOREALITY, ARE NOT OKAY, IF they are the 'results' of incorporeal 'competition', rather than 'cooperation'.

  118. And I just realized, in reading over the foregoing, that the theology can be confusing, so I want to reiterate some distinctions here. Competition and Cooperation, Chaos and Order, and the 'dynamics' thereof, ARE FINE and acceptable, IN A UNITARY FIELD, where BOTH Competition AND Cooperation, Chaos AND Order, ARE OPERATING WITHIN the wholeness, the completeness, and the POSITIVITY, the COOPERATION ...... OF that Unified-field, where you might say that any and all 'results' OF such 'dynamics' of Order versus Chaos ARE REALLY COOPERATION! The 'hitch' here, is when Incorporeal 'dynamics' BECOME Corporeal 'mechanisms', OUTSIDE OF that Unitary-field of Consciousness! In other words, I am saying that Order versus Chaos and the 'dynamics' thereof ARE OKAY WITHIN Incorporeality, BUT WHEN THE RESULTS THEREOF GO BEYOND Incorporeality INTO Corporeality ...... THEN we're in trouble, as to the effects of that competition that are felt in corporeality! In other words, let me say this in theological terms. Lucifer is presently in the Nether Regions of Cosmic Consciousness, which includes Earth. His 'actions', and the 'dynamics' thereof his negative-axion-particles, of his 'dimension' (Negativity-Chaos), WOULD BE OKAY, IF confined exclusively, or THROUGHOUT, the Cosmic 'regions' of the Cosmos, IN HARMONY, in 'Oneness', WITH POSITIVITY (Cooperation, or Yin-Yang!), where the Duality of Order versus Chaos, in it's functional 'dynamics', at the boundaries of such borders, DOES PRODUCE 'Life', new condensates and so forth! BUT Lucifer IS NOT presently throughout the Cosmos, or 'in harmony' with Infinite Consciousness! He has been expelled from 'Oneness' (Unity) and confined to the 'Nether Regions', where his Negativity, his Duality (with Positivity) IS BEING FELT BEYOND Incorporeality, INTO Corporeality! The Incorporeal 'creation' of a condensate (a Life-form) is okay, BUT when Negativity 'intrudes' INTO that Life-form, that condensate (as a Cooper-paired 'influence' between what should be 'Oneness' or wholeness of upper and lower Mind functioning), then that 'Duality' IS FELT in the 'results' OF that 'functioning' OF those two condensates, upper and lower Mind, AND THUSLY RESULTS IN Negativity AND Positivity being 'experienced' IN CORPOREALITY, WITHIN that Individual human Life-form 'dimensionality' of Consciousness (and, by extension, to all societal-functions and 'activities' that such an individual Life-form shall engage in or with!)

  119. So the 'challenge' here, the 'Destiny' of humanity, is to EMBRACE, and to engage IN, COOPERATION and Positivity (rather than Competition and Negativity!), as the means of 'evicting' those 'fingers of Negativity' from within our Minds, and to the restoration of 'Oneness' and Wholeness within our Minds, which would be upper and lower Mind operating with whole and complete Positive axion charge instead of half-integer-spin Positive axion charge, as is now being 'influenced' BY the presence of those Negative axion particles (which are themselves being 'influenced', by their Cooper-paired proximity to Positive axion particles, to be of a Negative half-integer-spin variety).

  120. The further 'dynamic' to account for here is that, since the human gene pool that 'creates' Incorporeal Mind (as a 'dynamic' of HUMAN Evolution) has 'accepted' Cooper-pairing at the present time of our current civilization DUE TO an IMMATURITY OF THAT gene pool's 'dynamics', it is, again, 'upon us', on our shoulders (the 'challenge', the 'Destiny', of mankind), TO THROW OFF those 'fingers of Negativity', that Competition, AND BY and through HUMAN COOPERATION WORLDWIDE (throughout the gene pool!), thusly ACTIVATE MATURITY OF THAT GENE POOL, which would result in a gene pool that would consequently 'create', IN Incorporeality, individual and local human 'Mind' OF A WHOLE AND COMPLETE nature, of whole-integer-spin POSITIVE axion particles, WITHOUT ANY 'intrusion' BY Negative axion particles! Such gene-pool 'creation', OF a Whole and Complete-functioning individual local Mind, WOULD PREVENT and exclude any incursioning BY Negative consciousness INTO human corporeality, AS WELL AS enabling each and every one of us TO REALLY COME TO KNOW our Soul, the upper Mind, the 'awareness' of which has (as per Carl Jung) been blocked (at the present time) BY that 'Veil of Separation/Unknowing', which those 'fingers of Negativity' do so constitute. KNOWING our Soul would also enable us, as individuals, to become 'aware of', AND IN CONTROL OF, the phase-space-shift gene(s) OF that gene-pool of Incorporeal Mind, further enabling the human Consciousness to NORMALLY and naturally 'travel' to other 'dimensions' of Consciousness BEYOND the individual local Mind BY THE USE OF that phase-space-shift 'dynamic' within ANY human individual's Mind!

  121. Okay, getting to your comments. 'Wave-collapse' and Planck-scale 'dynamics' of a Unitary field. Okay, I guess you could say that any 'dynamic' operating at a 'point of criticality' is exhibiting a 'wave-collapse' and transferring energy, if not from past/present/future 'non-localities' within that Unitary field, then from somewhere to somewhere else, if not from incorporeality to corporeality and back. And as to the Planck scale, I think Prigogine's temperature-density 'extensions' (FOR consciousness, NOT corporeality!) can run up throughout that scale to the utmost levels of Cosmic 'entities' such as galaxies and black holes and the 'consciousness' thereof such, so there is no problem here. Incidentally, have you read the Main QUFD document's sections on black holes and the other Cosmic 'realities' of Consciousness? Again, Richard, you may be beginning to see a condensate (AND condensates) of Consciousness, as a gigantic and extremely complex SYSTEM, a system of many and variable 'parameters', that MAY BE incomprehensible on a corporeal level of Newtonian-thinking, but which certainly DOES BECOME 'comprehensible' IN THE MIND, in Consciousness, in INCORPOREALITY, of Quantum-thinking, where COOPERATION AND COMPETITION (IN that Unitary-field) IS the requisite-norm, rather than just COMPETITION, which is singularly destructive in corporeality. Incidentally, as to the 'requisite-norms' of Incorporeality, in that competition, between Positivity and Negativity, Order versus Chaos, IS ACCEPTABLE IN INCORPOREALITY, therefore we can say that the 'dynamics' OF Order versus Chaos THAT RESULT, OR TAKE PLACE in Incorporeality, ARE UNITARY, or are yet OF the Unitary-nature OF such a Unitary-field of dark-matter, where 'ground-states' of both Order and Chaos can exist, AS WELL AS the 'dynamics' THAT TAKE PLACE BETWEEN Order and Chaos RELATIVE TO the 'inputs' thereof and thereto!

  122. Richard, I want to repeat one more thing here. Each and every 'point' that I have made herein and in my previous emails, DOES ALREADY EXIST in the pages of QUFD, for anyone to read, who can 'wade through' the 'complexity' of QUFD! True, there are sections of QUFD that are more 'Quantum Physics' in context than others, just as there are sections of QUFD which may be more 'sociological' or psychological or philosophical or whatever, in regard to the corporeal 'realities' of incorporeal consciousness. But most pages, in some way, do attempt to 'show', or define, or detail, the overall 'reality' OF THE 'BIG PICTURE', of humanity, human consciousness, the Cosmos, and of God and Lucifer, and their influences upon us! And, as I say, this is a 'system', of infinite complexity, that needs to be approached AS A SYSTEM, and NOT 'piecemeal', as science and its researchers have been prone to do.

  123. And one thing more, Richard. I think you may be beginning to realize that all the 'pieces', of this 'system', this jig-saw-puzzle, are 'out there', ALREADY, if not in 'publication', THEN WITHIN OURSELVES! KNOWING, of that 'which IS', does EXIST, as a normal facet of humanity, if the individual would but 'look within', to find that which 'IS'! So whether the information comes from the likes of Einstein (somebody!) or the likes of Jerome (nobody!), it is nonetheless REAL, and the TRUTH! But the more important point then becomes ...... WHAT DOES ONE DO WITH such 'Knowing'? The requirement, for ANY human being, IS TO TAKE ACTION, and to DO Something About It! As I have said in QUFD, when you KNOW yourself (your Soul), the only thing you can DO, is NOT 'Change YourSelf', but instead, CHANGE THE WORLD!

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    (26 Dec 15:18)
    Richard

  124. Well, it sounds like you've 'been there, done that' too, as to homelessness. If you ever get to the homeless sections of QUFD, you'll see that I've 'been there, done that' too. But today, via QUFD and my website, I have converted my life into Service Unto All rather than merely my local 'compadres' that I used to Serve (personally and on the homeless pages of my website, which are yet there, at such as http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/truthtrust.html). In fact, just the other day, I sent an email to an organization that I had long ago linked to on my website, and which I just the other day noticed had really updated their website to a really professional Service, 'grassroots.org'. I thanked them for their offerings on the web, and likewise informed them that I am no longer Serving only the 'locals' but have expanded my Services to the World! Hopefully, the Man Upstairs may do the same for you, Richard, in your Life and at the Quantum Mind Conference. Incidentally, I've 'been there, done that' as to all religions too, until the day in 1982 when I was Consecrated and re-Ordained by the Ancient Order, and since then my 'religion' has not been of any man-made 'religion' but of the true scientific Spirit and Consciousness of the OA/OWB, based upon the Truth and fact of Science and Cosmic Law!

    Best Regards, Richard,
    Jerome

    (26 Dec 15:30)

  125. Okay, Richard, I'm going to print your last email out so I can read it more thoroughly, but I glanced over it and I think maybe my last email to you earlier today may have addressed your issues of the 'Unity' of the QUFD condensate, the Planck scale and so forth. But I'll see if there is anything more to add when I read your message in its entirety.

    Jerome

    (27 Dec 11:01)
    Father Jerome

  126. I hope you do not mind me using you as a sounding board. But then you were the one who stimulated me to think about these things.

  127. I am trying to determine some of the properties of C, the so-called charge of Consciousness. Here are two subjective human experiences that seem to be apropos:
    1. From the experience of humans willing lights to turn off, or having them turn off spontaneously during chanting or meditation, it can appear that C can freeze electronic systems. This is like taking very quick measurements of a developing quantum system. Every time you measure it, it goes back to the initial point of its development. In short, continually observing a system can freeze it. I have noticed this myself. Once I get the spiritual energy in my body flowing, street lights, for example, are apt to turn off. I am trying to explain this by claiming that something in the C field around my body and out for about 50-100 feet is preventing electrons from flowing in the light apparatus. I expect that I am accumulating positive spin one C charge to the vicinity of my body from the surrounding atmosphere, leaving a negative spin one charge father out. The negative C charge interacts with the negative electrical Q charge. [The Lucifer effect I expect]
    But I do not understand how it works to turn off the light. [Notice that I avoided the word mechanism.] Apparently the negative C charge stops dynamics. Perhaps by observational freezing, or perhaps by a more direct mechanism [There, I used it]

    2. From the observation of apparitions it would appear that C can be accumulated and that C can attract or repulse electrical charge Q. Ghosts can be seen and even photographed, according to the Internet literature. That literature claims that ghosts can absorb energy from electrical systems. My guess is that ghosts therefore can intensify their C charge to excite electrons directly, or to absorb the electrons, or energy, from their surroundings, like from chemical batteries. I further presume that ghosts have an excess of negative C spin one charge. So the mechanism here is like the one in 1. above.

  128. You say somewhere that accumulation of axion charge can create bigger particles. [The Dale Carnegie effect here again, as noted hereinabove previously, where what I said has been completely misinterpreted or misunderstood!] So then enough negative spin one charge can create negatively charged electrons. Likewise positive spin one C charge could create protons, except that it requires at least a 1000 times more energy. So it is much more likely that electrons are affected or created. And it is electrons that are seen by humans, not protons. A corollary is that accumulation of negative C charge in your body can adversely affect your health, whereas that is much less true for positive C charge. I would surmise that a concentration of negative C charge could absorb electrons since like C charges attract. It follows that electrons carry negative C charge. Is that how the self causes the H atoms to flip back and forth? The landscape of the self condensate, being controlled by the Soul condensate (or perhaps Lucifer) could be concentrated on the side of the H atom that the electrons should be attracted to, which then leads to a flip of the H atom to that side. From what is said above, it would be an accumulation of negative C charge that accomplishes that. So Lucifer is needed to interact with the brain [Blasphemy! Lucifer is 'talking' here!]

  129. My intuition is that the Lucifer effects are cooperative rather than competitive. [Just what he would have you believe!] That does not jive with your idea of doing away with Lucifer. [RIGHT!] But it is where this argument is leading. [BECAUSE this 'argument' is NOT expressing Incorporeal QUFD principles but instead CORPOREAL 'mechanisms' of differentiated relativity!]

  130. Enough for now. You must be sick of all the mechanism talk anyway.

    Yours sincerely,
    Richard
    12/27/2002

    (27 Dec 14:07)

  131. Okay, Richard, I have some further replies to your specific points. But first I want to reiterate what my good friend 'Terry', Monsignor Terence Nicholplaiy, of the FIWD Institute, has allowed me to reprint on the Opening Page of QUFD, "Truly, there is not one person who would understand (page 4) unless he/she had first read (pages 1-2-3). The subject matter must be read as a book - linearily - or the reader, if he/she were to just jump from here to there, would be totally lost! Reading this work out of context can only lead to miscomprehension." Now THAT, I realize, is the 'reality' of QUFD, as I have been told by many Readers already. IF one does NOT have the time, or the access, to spend 37 hours reading QUFD2 (the Main Document), much less any other QUFD document, THEN that person WILL NOT UNDERSTAND QUFD ...... UNLESS that person prints-out the entire document (which is what some Readers have done, in order to accurately understand QUFD). In the case of the Main Document, QUFD2, this means a print-out of maybe 80 to 100 letter-size pages, depending on the printer-setup and font sizes, etc. BUT UNTIL ONE TRULY UNDERSTANDS the details of QUFD, any 'casual perusal' of QUFD can only result in the Reader trying to place QUFD into one's already-extant 'frame of reference', and that only leads to miscomprehension! Somewhere in QUFD (on one of the pages, I don't remember which, but http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Further.html comes close, and the section entitled, "A Serious Reader's RECOMMENDED READING GUIDE ......", near the top of the Main QUFD Document, makes a similar point), I have a quotation or a comment, from a Reader or wherever, that says something to the effect, "If you read QUFD once, you are 'interpreting' it relative to what you already know. If you read it a second time, then you might be 'interpreting' it relative to someone else's 'interpretation'. But when you read it the third time, YOU MAY, finally, start to 'interpret' it as something new, to be slowly 'digested' and savored, leading thusly to POSSIBLE 'understanding' thereof!" Now I am NOT 'accusing' you of not reading QUFD, but as I said in most every email, the 'points' that I make in response to your question ARE ALREADY THERE, in the pages of QUFD! So if you need to, PLEASE print something out, and READ IT, to truly understand it!

  132. Now, I am going to respond to certain 'points' in your last email that, again however, ARE ALREADY THERE, in the pages of QUFD!

  133. 1. "10 dimensions". QUFD notes '12 dimensions' (defined as 'perspectives) in any 'dimension' (defined as a condensate-ground-state, of Consciousness and Reality).

  134. 2. "One side of the condensate immediately feels what the other side experiences." Several pages of QUFD, in the QUALIA series and elsewhere, point out that the 'landscape' (of 'perturbations' and all the instantaneous 'dynamics' that may be occuring) of any condensate of Mind, do experience THE SAME incorporeal 'results' OF each and every 'perturbation', BUT EACH SIDE IS INTERFACING with a different 'Reality', a different condensate, and therefore the 'perturbations' ARE DIFFERENT, 'adapted' (as it were) TO the 'interfacing' REALITY!

  135. 3. "Entanglement/complexity". Please read the sections dealing with CHAOS, and the chaotic 'dynamics' of a condensate!

  136. 4. "The self (small s) condensate must contain a representation of the brain." YES, to a certain extent it does, as it needs to 'know' WHAT and HOW each and every synapse's function IS relative to the entire brain's myriad numbers of functions. BUT, THAT 'awareness' DOES NOT COME EXCLUSIVELY from the lower mind's supervisory interactions with the brain and the synaptic junctions/glia thereof! That 'awareness', as I have said on QUFD pages AND in a previous email, comes ALSO as a result of the Sentience OF THE Soul, in its 'awareness' OF 'inputs' from the Collective and other condensates BEYOND that individual local Mind! And the lower mind, the (s)elf, contains ONLY memories that have been retained in 'impermeable' (if that is the word) 'memory', which is merely 'conscientious' memory, which is subject to fading away and loss over time. PERMANENT 'memory' is contained ONLY IN THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS of humanity, and can ONLY BE ACCESSED by and through the SOUL, and 'IN THE MOMENT'! Until one is 'aware' of, and in contact WITH, one's Soul (NOT cutoff therefrom, BY Carl Jung's 'Veil of Separation/Unknowing' - see my http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lecture3.html), one cannot 'access' ANY Consciousness beyond the (s)elf, and thusly, not 'Knowing' one's Soul, all one can 'know' is the 'me-ism' and impermeable memories of the (s)elf!

  137. 5. "Memories are systems of entangled ideas and thoughts or experiences." God, I wish I had the 'pictorials' - giant, poster size pictures, of the Mind, ranging from an individual synapse/glial cell, on and up to the Mind of God! (YES!) These pictures were lost due to bankruptcy foreclosure, but they were very impressive in their pictorial presentation of Consciousness, showing visually many of the details that I have had to describe verbally on the pages of QUFD as 'visualizations', which are more difficult to 'visualize' than an actual graphical 'pictorial' image. Thusly, one section of the Main QUFD document (and a few other pages) attempt to verbally 'explain' that 'memories' have at least two different 'flavors' - those that are briefly retained (for how many years) in the lower mind, the (s)elf, AND those, secondly, that are NOT retained by the individual local Mind AT ALL, but which instantaneously (upon being experienced) pass through the Mind TO THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS of humanity (the Akashic Records, the Hall of Records), where they are 'recorded' PERMANENTLY FOREVER, in their minutest detail! THUSLY can I, OR ANYONE (OF Mature Mind), do as I have done, AND 'Be There', IN THE MIND OF ANOTHER PERSON, or just 'access' the 'experience' and 'realities' OF ANYONE OR EVERYONE, whether Past/Present or Future, IN THE COLLECTIVE, which is INTEMPORAL and FOREVER (as a function of the timelessness and 'non-locality' of zero-gravity IN A UNITARY field)!

  138. 6. "But electrons having the same electrical charges repel each other." Yeah, they sure do, IN CORPOREALITY and in corporeal Quantum Mechanics! But NOT in INCORPOREALITY! How many times do I have to say it, that Quantum 'Mechanics' looks at INDIVIDUAL particles, forces and fields, NOT UNITARY fields! I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, when talking about a Unitary Field, I THROW ALL THOSE TERMS AND REFERENCES TO leptons, bosons, fermions, etc., etc., etc., OUT THE DOOR! [They do NOT apply to an incorporeal condensate, as far as I know!]

  139. 7. "(Particles which) therefore decay away after death, unless prayed for as you have said." WHAT??? I NEVER said such a thing that I know of! Besides 'prayer' is a 'religious' thing and as I have told you, I do NOT have ANY 'religion', in that ALL 'religions' are man-made! My Christianity IS OF CHRIST, direct from Spirit, Positive Incorporeality, AS SO extant IN Consciousness!

  140. 8. "The gaps between atomic nuclei are for them just as spacious as are the holes in a fishing net for molecules of air." I would say, again, here to check the section of the Main QUFD document (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qufd2.html) on Cosmic Planck-scale 'differentiated relativity versus undifferentiated relativity' and the 'Cosmic "fabrics" of Time and Space'!

  141. 9. "...the unitary field of the zero temperature condensate." I NEVER said QUFD was a zero-temperature-condensate Unified Field! The Planck scale IS Incorporeal Consciousness, at temperature-densities EVERYWHERE along its range, INCLUDING humanity! This is also detailed in the Main QUFD document! Incidentally, the latter sections of the Main QUFD document postulate that humanity has existed BEFORE and AFTER the 'Big Bang' and that the human Soul can 'see' the Cosmic 'Ocean of Consciousness' as the 'bubbles' and 'ripples' of the many 'dimensions' and universes of Consciousness!

  142. 10."So they are at absolute zero and form a galactic if not universal condensate." NO, I never said that! This is Quantum 'Mechanics' again, NOT Unitary-field 'dynamics'! As I've said before, I'd THROW ALL THAT Corporeal, Quantum 'Mechanical' terminology and concepts out the window! As far as I can see, THEY do NOT apply IN a Unitary Field of the quantum forces!

  143. Sorry for the 'criticisms' of your 'conceptualizations'. I am not being 'condescending' thereof, but I am merely 'defending' (if that is what it might be called) the accuracy of QUFD, AS I HAVE SO detailed it! Incidentally, on the Planck-scale of Consciousness [as Dr. Ruquist calls it, I call it the 'Scale of Life'], temperature/density and Spirit/Sentience DO MATTER, or are of concern, AS THE factors that 'create' a 'dimension' (defined as an individual condensate ground-state of 'LIFE'), whether that 'dimension'-condensate is one human being, or the 'dimension-condensate' of an ant, or of a pulsar, or of a black hole! All of this is detailed in the Main QUFD document. Maybe, Richard, some day you will do as I have done, when my Soul's 'consciousness' was able to go beyond MY 'dimension', to spend a most enjoyable time 'conversing' with the 'consciousness' OF AN ANT, which is a very intelligent 'entity' INDEED [AND on your Planck-scale, or more accurately, on my 'Scale of Life']!

    Jerome

    (27 Dec 15:12)
    Okay, Father Jerome. The points you make relative to QUFD are not the points I am asking for. I have read your entire site linearly and the questions I ask are not answered there. Yet you persist in essentially quoting from your site, perhaps in the hope that that will answer my questions. But that is not the case.

  144. I am looking for the microscopic details of how the condensate is connected to the brain. That is not anywhere on your site. The laws of QUFD are not even there. Nor is there any mathematical relationships describing the laws. You just relate how things go together. You do not present a theory of how they work together. You do not even say that positive axion charges attract positive charges, and negative charges attract negative charges, and that unlike charges repel each other. That is the most basic law of all. [Yes, in CORPOREALITY, but NOT in Incorporeality!] Of course, you will say that attraction and repulsion are just corporeal, and you are only concerned with incorporeality. Then it seems that I am only concerned with corporeality and I intend to show that it includes everything of importance, including GOD.

  145. Let's discuss your items one at a time:
    1. Your dimensions are not space dimensions. [Right!] What you call dimensions of the condensate are just properties of the condensate. [Sorry, but here is that 'Dale Carnegie Syndrome' misunderstanding again, that my friend Monsignor Terence Nicholplaiy has warned about! I have said that a condensate itself is a dimension, not that a dimension is a property of a condensate!] You are using the word dimension in an unscientific manner. [Okay, let's talk about exactly who has been 'talking' about unscientific stuff, i.e., psychic phenomena, 'apparitions' and such 'New Age' fantasies, in previous emails! QUFD is purely scientific and not of such nonsense and one of the facts of accepted scientific methodology is that a researcher, faced with the realization of completely new definitions of reality, as produced by scientific research and obvious truths, is certainly required to adequately and sufficiently 're-define' or 'add-to' (the definition of) any word that appropriately needs re-definition!]
    2. I want to know how the self condensate connects to the microwaves and the H atom. You have never said how. [I have said many times already and you have even 'verified' the same yourself back in reply, so I cannot understand how your mind cannot comprehend such unless something is 'stuck' in corporeality!]
    3. Entanglement is the opposite of chaos. There is no randomness in entanglement, just connection. Of course, here I am assuming that by chaos you mean what scientists mean by chaos. Perhaps you have redefined that word like you did dimension. [I have defined incorporeal Order versus Chaos, as some of the 'attributes' of a condensate. I am not even going to get into 'entanglement', which is your 'concept'!]
    4. I am not yet interested in how the Soul is connected to the self, nor in the veil. That is beside the point. It may be the most substantial of your claims. But it does not answer any of my questions. [Sorry, but the incorporeal condensate of a unitary field is (w)holistic and unitary, so it cannot leave out very important 'factors' of its functioning like the Soul, the Veil, the self and such realities that you do not wish to address. Until one can understand all the complexities and 'components' of a unified field, one cannot possibly understand a unitary field, QUFD or Incorporeality!]
    5. You again did not answer my question. Is entanglement related or the same as spirit? [How does Spirit now become involved with 'entanglement'? The 'presumptions' of misunderstanding are really something!]
    6. Are you saying that electrons are incorporeal? No, because in the next breath you say that you are throwing it [electrons] out the door. I must say that you are quite inconsistent in number 6 [of Jerome's email]. First you say that electrons repel each other in corporeality [???], but not incorporeality. Then you seem to say that all electrons are corporeal [I have nowhere, in QUFD, talked about electrons!] You cannot have it both ways.
    7. You said that when you talked about the Eastern Orthodox religion, remembering the dead on the 40th day and on the one year anniversary of death [Have no idea what he is talking about here???].
    8. That is a quote from someone else's work. I am not responsible for it. [Again have no idea what he is referring to here!]
    9. I know you never said that the condensate existed at absolute zero. I say that and in this regard we disagree. A macroscopic BEC can only exist near absolute except in a few semiconductors, which still require very low temperatures. The Planck scale is not macroscopic and therefore cannot be used to obtain the properties of a BEC. The condensate is an ordered medium. There is no order on the Planck scale. Charges do not even exist on the Planck scale. The QUFD does not describe the Planck scale. [Never said it did!]
    10. Sorry. But cosmic axions are particles that exist at absolute zero and they form a continuous BEC throughout the galaxy. Einstein's unified field does not apply to them. His work on the unified field and his work on the BEC are separate pieces of physics. I think you are confusing them.
  146. I am sorry to be so precise in my criticism of your Planck scale concepts. But they have no place in describing the behavior of a BEC. The BEC does not exist on the Planck scale. It exists on a macroscopic scale and a cosmic scale. I simply cannot understand ["...how freedom falters..."] how you can confuse the Planck scale with the macroscopic scale. That is where John Hegelin and TM went wrong. Are you associated with them? I went to school with John. Now he is running for President. TM is a political and religious institution, not a physics institution. They got the physics all wrong.

  147. I thought you had it right. I did not notice your claims for the Planck scale or I would have stopped reading right away. I guess the guy upstairs [WHY doesn't this man show God some respect, by capitalizing His name?] wanted me to read the whole thing, which I did. I passed over the bit about temperatures below absolute zero, and the redefinition of the word dimension. I could not have passed over the bit about the Planck scale. [Sure must have 'passed over' an awful lot, if that is what this fellow calls 'reading everything'!] John and I had argued too often about that. Intelligence cannot exist on the Planck scale no matter what you say. [BS, BS!]

  148. So the bottomline is that you have rejected all that I have said [Not so! I have merely put such into proper context!], so I can claim sole ownership of it [That is fine, as long as it does not pertain to QUFD!]. I thank you for stimulating me to think about it, or was it the guy upstairs?

    Richard

    (28 Dec 13:07)

  149. Congratulations, Richard. You have apparently 'graduated' from your matriculation in QUFD. In line with QUFD 'requirements', you have 'found' the 'answers' within yourself to any and all questions that you might ask and thusly have no need for any further 'input' to your personal condensate-dimension from this source of info, logic and reason. I am glad of that because it was also becoming apparent that I did not have anything further to add to your 'knowing', in that your mind had apparently decided that the 'answers' you did seek were to be found exclusively in the definable 'mechanics' of quantum corporeality rather than in the undefinable 'dynamics' of incorporeality, and thusly I was surely becoming of no use to you in my inexpertise in such corporeality of quantum 'mechanics'. Some day, Richard, if you might wish to philosophically further our discussions of quantum incorporeality and the 'dynamics' of such a mathematically undefinable Unitary Field condensate-dimension, I will most surely and happily be willing to do so. (After all, if the mathematical genius of Einstein could not 'define' a Unified Field, why should we expect anything more of anyone of less mathematical acumen than Einstein?) And I am sorry that my lack of corporeal 'expertise' has failed your necessities, but, as I say, on the other hand, I am glad that you have found those 'answers' within yourself!

    Now that we have finally reached an agreement on something (that your thinking and 'knowing' are corporeal and that mine are incorporeal, and thusly my 'input' is insufficient for your needs), I would like to note some corrections to your last communiqu‚ that I feel are necessary to uphold the integrity and accuracy of QUFD.
    1. Regarding the Planck scale, it was you who introduced that term into our discussions. I merely acquiesced in its use as a means of 'communicating' with your understanding, in that it did accurately represent the upper ranges of those Cosmic ranges which QUFD does identify. Nowhere on the pages of QUFD do I actually use that term, the scale I have referred to being a scale of 'differentiated relativity versus undifferentiated relativity', which I have accurately defined as a scale of LIFE (and intelligence/Sentience), which does range from the lowest temperature-densities to the very highest.
    2. Incidentally, regarding your continued 'assertion' (which is, as far as I know, absolutely true!) that a corporeal quantum BEC condensate exists only at absolute zero temperatures, I will repeat something that I had noted to you previously. Which is that Prigogine, in an article in 'The (British) Economist' (I believe), had definitely 'surmised' that a BEC condensate of incorporeal consciousness must exist at "human temperature".
    3. Further, as to what I have put forth in the pages of QUFD, you will please note that I have definitely referred to such as the 'Philosophy' and Reality of QUFD, not a 'theory'. In this respect, such is the reason that I have quoted the following on the Opening Page of QUFD:
    "The primary purpose of science is to understand what the world is like. Everything else that science does - test theories, produce new technologies - is incidental to this fundamental purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of reality."
    - David Deutsch, Theoretical Physicist, Oxford, Great Britain
    4. I am well aware of the corporeal 'mechanics' of attraction-repulsion of charges and particles and that, as far as corporeal EM fields are concerned, "that is the most basic law of all". Again, as you have correctly put it, "you will say that [such] are just corporeal, and you are only concerned with incorporeality." Yes, you are right. I am not concerned with, nor expert in, the 'mechanisms' of corporeality, whether macro or quantum! But I do, in reflection of every theoretical physicist anywhere who has ever likewise postulated such, firmly 'know', within myself, that there is an incorporeal 'reality' beyond such corporeal 'realities' of individual forces/fields/charges and such, that when 'expressed' in a unitary field, does not, and cannot, be 'defined' by corporeal 'mechanisms'!
    5. As to God, I can only wish you well, in trying to 'stuff' Him into corporeality! That is what every 'religion' and 'spiritualist' in the world has, to some extent or the other, been forever trying to do, without much success. I'll be content to, as Carl Jung has so done, 'know' Him in incorporeality!
    6. Sorry, your definitions of 'dimension', 'entanglement', electrons and so forth, have no scientific reality as applied to an incorporeal condensate unitary field. That is why I have included dictionaries on the QUFD website, because in attempting to define the 'dynamics' (not the 'mechanisms') of a unitary field, it is most necessary to re-define those 'basic laws of the universe', as applied to a unitary field, where all corporeal 'mechanisms' are null and void! This may not be quantum 'mechanics', but it is entirely scientific and realistic, when dealing with the 'unknowns' of incorporeality, and it follows the accepted scientific 'methodologies' that have been 'laid down' for scientists through aeons of experience.
    7. As to your mention of a 'quote' from an 'Eastern Orthodox religion', I have no idea whatsoever of what you refer to. I never ever said anything about anything like an 'Eastern Orthodox religion'. I did say that I have no religion, preferring to, as Carl Jung has so done, 'know' Him directly, in the moment, in incorporeality.
    8. I don't know where you got "cosmic axions are particles that exist at absolute zero" and so forth, but such a stipulation is definitely not true in relation to a unitary field of consciousness. Whoever might have put forth such is not seeing the incorporeality of consciousness, but is, I suspect, merely trying to 'stuff' the reality of the cosmic condensate into a corporeal framework. That is not reality!
    9. Yes, Einstein's unified field work and his collaboration with Satyendra Bose are separate works of physics. I never said anything otherwise.
    10. Sorry, don't know anything about anyone named John Hegelin or TM. I've heard of TM, but as far as I know it is some form of 'New Age' fantasy, having nothing to do with physics or reality.

  150. So, as you correctly say, the bottom line is that your 'perspective' is corporeal and quantum 'mechanical', while mine is merely incorporeal and quantum 'dynamic'. I have not rejected anything you have said, but only placed it in its proper context - corporeality, accepting that as far as what you have put forth is true from the perspective of corporeality, but not incorporeality. The same inverse may be true for you, as far as my perspectives on incorporeality. In this respect, we have apparently, as I have said, reached an agreement. Again, if you may wish to further discuss incorporeality, I'll be glad to do so, but I hope you understand that I cannot help you with respect to corporeality.

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (30 Dec 10:26)
    Father Jerome

  151. The key to your site is the following quote:
    "Which is that Prigogine, in an article in 'The (British) Economist' (I believe), had definitely 'surmised' that a BEC condensate of incorporeal consciousness must exist at "human temperature".

    It is likely that a physical kind of consciousness exists at room temperature of the Frolich type where it is claimed that membrane dipoles behave coherently when excited electrically. Otherwise there is no explanation for the sleep/waking phenomena. You have a corporeal waking consciousness [Yes, lower mind, interacting with brain!] when electrical energy is supplied to the brain. When it is turned off, you then have the axion consciousness [Brain being stimulated by, and accessing, not only lower mind but upper Mind/Soul as well, although axion consciousness is also the source of all lower mind 'dynamics', even during waking hours!].

    So when Prig says that condensate is likely at room temperature, he means the very corporeal dipole type or some other very physical type. Several such theories have been proposed. [Here we go again! 'Theories', in contradiction to Reality!] By the use of the word incorporeal, he means that the consciousness includes the wave functions of the quantum medium. That is, your consciousness is both a quantum computer and a classical computer. The classical computer aspect is visible as our imagination and our visual and auditory field. The quantum aspect, being wave functions like EM waves, is invisible; and therefore Prig calls it incorporeal.

    It is incorporeal in the sense that it is made up of fields and not particles. But you have already told me that that is not what you mean by incorporeal. You said that EM waves are corporeal. Prig, in other writings, clearly says that QUANTUM WAVES ARE INCORPOREAL - they are not particles. Prig had the same interpretation of quantum mechanics as I, that waves and particles do not exist at the same time. [But QUFD principles, referring ONLY to those realities WITHIN the singular UNITARY FIELD of all the quantum forces, state that waves and particles DO EXIST in such a field, where time - temporality - does NOT exist, (nor 'space', as space is 'defined' in corporeality as a 'dimension of time and space') with the axion particles providing the coherent 'basis' of the ground-state 'fundamental property' of the condensate and the quantum waves accounting for the functions or 'dynamics' that take place IN SUCH A GROUND-STATE WHEN 'stimulated' by the various 'inputs' TO such a unitary ground-state field.] Waves collapse into particles.

  152. [Jerome: I want to further reiterate something Richard brought up in the preceding paragraph that I addressed briefly. Again, time and space are corporeal and 'dimensions' of time and space which exist in 'differentiated relativity' (corporeality) ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than 'dimensions' of Incorporeality existing in unitary-field condensates of 'undifferentiated relativity'. Incorporeal 'dimensions' refer to the ENTIRE ground-state condensate. Each and every condensate, no matter how small nor how large, IS A DIMENSION of Incorporeality! Thusly dimensions do and can exist inside of other dimensions. And each dimension is known by the basic, fundamental, axion particles of Consciousness that constitute the ground-state condensate of that dimension - negative axion particles describing dimensions of negativity and positive axion particles describing dimensions of positivity. It is further noted here that such ground-state condensates of opposite particle polarity as should become Cooper-paired shall experience a 'modification' or re-adjustment of such individual ground-state condensate particles, from whole integer-spin (of whichever polarity) TO half-integer-spin of that polarity, e.g., half negative or half positive, the basic polarity yet remaining that which it was originally, but the influence from the Cooper-pairing converting such polarity particles to a half-spin rather than a whole-spin. Thusly, the wave functions, or 'dynamics', that subsequently take place with respect to all ground-state 'inputs', are so 'influenced' BY the basic polarity of that dimension-condensate ground-state, such 'dynamics' being negative (Sentient Negativity, or spirit, with relation TO the 'decisions' or 'outputs' OF a negative ground-state, AS REFLECTED in ultimate Corporeality), or positive (Sentient Positivity, or Spirit, with relation TO the 'decisions' or 'outputs' OF a positive ground-state, AS REFLECTED in ultimate Corporeality!)]

  153. [Richard]The common definition of the word incorporeal is that it means not to particulate. Waves are the incorporeal aspect of quantum theory ['Theory' again, rather than reality!] and particles that they collapse into are the corporeal aspect. That is what scientists mean by those terms and that is what Prig meant [as 'defined' by a quantum 'mechanic'!].

  154. The axion particles and C charges of the condensate are clearly corporeal [NO! NO!] They are particles and the charge associated with a particle. You see these axion particles in your sleep when you dream. The waves associated with these, and all other particles, are invisible. You do not see the axion waves or fields in your sleep.

  155. Quantum dynamics is a particle/wave duality [Okay, I'll agree with that, in that it does take both 'to tango', or produce a 'dynamic'!], a corporeal/incorporeal duality with many interpretations. Feymann thought that only particles existed - that nature was completely corporeal, just like Newton - and he derived Quantum Electrodynamics on this basis. Only he had to use positrons going backwards in time together with electrons going forward in time to make the derivation work. There are no fields or quantum waves in his QED theory, and it is the most accurate theory yet derived.

  156. The second most accurate theory, Einstein's General Relativity was derived on the basis that gravitational fields do not exist. Mass just distorts the geometry of space/time. So again this is a totally corporeal theory. All his work on the unified field is based on extensions of GR.

  157. Einstein's BEC theory is not a theory but rather the observation that when integral spin particles slow down as absolute zero is approached, their wave functions spread so much that the wave functions of adjacent atoms will begin to overlap. He then conjectured that the atoms would then act as one atom. The first actual BEC theory was for superconductors near absolute zero and Einstein had nothing to do with that theory. There is no BEC theory at room temperature nor has a BEC ever been found there.

  158. I am surprised that the university you went to did not teach the fundamentals of physics. Perhaps it taught the physics of dark matter that is beyond detection on the physical plane. But you have tried to relate that teaching to ordinary physics without apparently being schooled in ordinary physics. [I will not even answer this 'presumption', as my 'schooling' and qualifications in Quantum Physics are clearly noted on the pages of the QUFD website. As to what kind of 'Physics', such is the substance of this 'Conversation' and webpage and I do believe I have clearly stated that Quantum Physics of the INcorporeal 'persuasion' are clearly of a Truth and Reality in comparison to Quantum 'Mechanics' of the Corporeal 'persuasion', when attempting to define the realities of Incorporeality and the Unitary Field of Consciousness!]

    Regards,
    Richard

    (30 Dec 15:17)

  159. Congratulations again, Richard. Read over your lengthy response and without thinking about it further, I'd say that I couldn't agree more. From what I know (and I must say that I have 'forgotten' much, as well), from the 'schooling' that you correctly surmise was not 'accredited' in modern 'corporeality' (they did not even encompass - back in those days - much of the corporeal 'results' as to the psychological and sociological 'conditions' extant in the world today that I have written about with merely 'Principle' to go on). Although the details of my 'schooling' are faithfully detailed on several of the pages of my website, I also note that the 'accrediting' thereof is not accepted today because corporeal, secular society cannot accept the incorporeality and accreditation of a non-secular Institution that is over 47,000 years old and has existed since way before any 'school' of today was even 'accredited'!

  160. Anyway, again, congratulations, Richard. I am glad that my humble contribution was to at least 'inspire' you to look into such matters further. Now, as they say in sports, you have been passed the ball, and it is up to you to run with it. (Sorry, Richard, I'm not a sports fan, so that was the most apropos statement I could come up with.)

  161. If your musings ever get back to the incorporeal side of quantum 'dynamics' with a Spiritual/Sentient perspective, I'd be glad to 'go round' with you again.

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (2 Jan 13:46)
    Father Jerome

    I just saw this quote from Hagen's article on quantum consciousness:
    "... temperature below which this will occur is inversely proportional to the mass of the Cooper pair ..."

  162. So the axion Cooper pair, being about a million times lighter than an electron Cooper pair, would not need temperatures near absolute zero to condense. It would condense at temperatures on the surface of the sun, and of course at room temperature. So solar generated axions would immediately be absorbed into the galactic condensate.

  163. I was claiming that since cosmic axions precipitated out of space during recombination, that they would be at absolute zero and would form a condensate. It is true that most of them are near absolute zero. But as you said, that is not necessary to form a condensate. A condensate will form at almost any temperature due to their very small mass.

    Regards,
    Richard

    (3 Jan 13:32)

  164. But just imagine, Richard, the one universal condensate that is the source of all sub-condensates, Infinite Consciousness. That one condensate would extend through any and all temperatures and density/mass ranges. So if that one condensate is truly dark matter, in your formulation, therefore such considerations would be necessary.

  165. In QUFD I 'visualize' that entire range, but along the (linearly increasing) axis of that entire range I also differentiate between the two major 'differences' (other than temperature, density and Sentience/Spirit) at any point along that range, Corporeality versus Incorporeality, which are called 'Differentiated Relativity versus Undifferentiated Relativity' (Sorry, where I got this from, I do not remember, unless it was from the Santa Fe people) [or possibly from my 5 years of research in the Hall of Records in the OA/OWB's 'dimension' of Consciousness, when I was teaching at the FIWD Institute in London (as noted in my Vitae)], each such 'differentiated point' thusly defining the predominant 'perturbation' or 'point of criticality' of the condensate at that point, which is also known as 'LIFE', of whatever form of 'Life' shall exist at such 'point', be it of cosmic, plant, animal, human or otherwise (even quantum particles, although you might disagree with such an elaboration). Thusly the 'visualization' on the pages of QUFD is termed 'Life'.

  166. Such an extensive 'elaboration' you might term 'speculation' and I cannot honestly remember where the info came from, unless, again, it was a combination of BEC and Santa Fe 'principles' [or from my 'sojourning' in Consciousness].

    Jerome

    (3 Jan 13:51)
    Richard

  167. A further thought. I just, in my previous email, noted that quantum particles might also be found at the very smallest end of the 'Scale of Life'. Since such scale defines the 'difference' between Corporeality and Incorporeality (as to dark matter/condensates) as 'differentiated relativity versus undifferentiated relativity', I guess this also puts various quantum particles on the 'Corporeal' side and others, such as the axion particle of consciousness, on the 'Incorporeal' side, of that 'Scale'.

  168. Now, if I remember right, QUFD also 'differentiates' WITHIN Incorporeality, or within 'undifferentiated relativity', as to Positive versus Negative axion particles, further forming the basis of such sub-condensates, or 'Life', as may be 'formed' wholly within 'undifferentiated relativity'.

    Jerome

    (5 Jan 16:05)
    Richard

  169. Okay, I have had some further thoughts with regard to your just previous issues and my replies. But first, I need to explain something.

  170. As I am 'thinking' about such matters, OR, as you might more accurately describe such, as such 'thoughts' ARE COMING INTO MY MIND, in that I am NOT consciously 'seeking them out', but instead, am merely 'listening' to the Guy Upstairs (or my 'personal Guardian/Angel'?), who may be said to be 'directing' such 'thoughts' to my Mind (and please note that I always capitalize Mind/Soul, but NOT mind/self), from wherever they may be coming (even IF, possibly, via the 'Collective Consciousness of all of humanity', from the 'thoughts' of other scientists, theoreticians or otherwise, elsewhere), what I did further realize is that such 'thoughts' are, in fact, merely 'reminding' me of that which does exist already - IN THE pages of QUFD AND in QUFD Principles, as such has been derived from BEC, Santa Fe, Jung, Chaos Theory, Adaptive Complexity, [the Hall of Records] and wherever! The point, again, is that whatever 'thought' my Mind may be pursuing, IS CONSONANT WITH Principle, QUFD Principles, as put forth somewhere on the pages of QUFD! And the further point is that QUFD IS A 'SYSTEM', a complex 'system' of Principles, which MAY be used to describe a 'whole', a complete 'systemic' and holistic 'entity', the condensate of Infinite Consciousness (God), 'dark matter', and its sub-condensates or dimensions (defined as per QUFD)! (Although I realize that QUFD Principles do, more so, apply to Incorporeality than Corporeality, as I am definitely NOT an expert on Corporeality!)

  171. Okay, getting back to the 'thoughts' that did transpire in my Mind, they did relate to those 'entities of Life' (on the QUFD 'Scale of Life') of which you have, apparently, much concern with, as to accurate identification and description - quantum particles! And you realize, as you have already stated, that such 'theorization' is mere 'speculation', as far as 'accreditation' for such 'theorizing' from the scientific establishment, who would probably have to 'stretch' their imaginations quite a ways in order to encompass such QUFD 'distinctions' and 'definitions' as to quantum particles.

  172. To the nitty-gritty ...... IF quantum particles can be 'distinguished' on the QUFD 'Scale of Life', as Life-Form 'entities' of 'differentiated relativity/Corporeality versus undifferentiated relativity/Incorporeality', then most all of the known quantum particles might fall on the Corporeal side of such a 'distinction', with the Incorporeal 'denizens' of 'dark matter' being on the other side, starting with whole integer-spin versus half integer-spin, Positive and Negative axion particles (which are described by QUFD, any other Incorporeal-side particles to be 'defined' by other scientists of the Quantum). And again, the distinctive difference here, as to the Corporeal side versus the Incorporeal side, is that particles on the 'differentiated relativity' side are existing and functioning WITHIN and IN CONJUNCTION WITH, their INDEPENDENT quantum forces and fields, in line with presently accepted quantum 'mechanics'. However, quantum particles on the Incorporeal side ARE PART OF A BEC CONDENSATE, a Unitary/Unified 'condensate' OF ALL the quantum forces/fields ('undifferentiated relativity'), where the quantum particles thereof are definitely unique and distinct from particles on the other (Corporeal) side, their actions ('dynamics') and functions thusly responding to not only temporal/intemporal and density-state 'inputs' (BOTH Corporeal AND Incorporeal), BUT ALSO 'responding' to that one other 'characteristic' that is EXCLUSIVE TO the Incorporeal-side of this 'Scale of Life' - that of SENTIENCE! It is Sentience, and the 'dynamics' thereof, in response to any and all 'inputs', that distinguishes 'undifferentiated relativity' from the Corporeal-side and the known quantum particles and 'mechanics' thereof such side, with quantum 'mechanical' particles adhering exclusively to the quantum principles and laws in their 'mechanical' (and definable) actions. BUT SENTIENCE IS UNDEFINABLE, and the Sentient quantum 'dynamic' particles of Consciousness and Incorporeality ...... "Do what ya gotta do, Do what they're gonna Do ......", WHATEVER that may be, in instantaneous response to 'inputs' THAT MAY NEVER AGAIN EXIST AFTER THAT ONE MOMENT of timelessness and spacelessness ('undifferentiated relativity')!

  173. Okay, Richard, you'd like to now get some realistic explanation to such a 'fantasy' (although I hate to call it such), and you'd like to know what the INTERFACE 'mechanism(s)' ARE that would 'drive' such a 'system', and what the exact 'feedback loops' of-necessity are, or may be, between Corporeal and Incorporeal quantum particles. Well, if I remember right, in one of your previous emails, you postulated about such things as 'quiff-wave-collapse' (FROM 'undifferentiated relativity') resulting IN DEFINABLE 'mechanical' quantum particle activity on the Corporeal side, with (likewise) such quantum 'mechanical' activity, in turn, triggering or stimulating the establishment OF 'quiff-wave-creation' on the Incorporeal side. Hey, Richard, as to these INTERFACE 'dynamics' and 'mechanics', between Corporeality and Incorporeality ...... I'll leave such 'definition' to you! All QUFD does, in definition of such 'interface', is to state that temporality/temperature IS A RESULT of the specific 'location', of temperature/density/Sentience, at which that particular Life-form 'entity' does exist, on the QUFD 'Scale of Life', temperature being relative more so to the Corporeal-side conditions existing at such a 'location' that are conducive TO the 'creation' OF such a Life-form 'entity', whether that 'location' should be the proper temperature/density/Sentience 'point' for the existence of a quantum particle, a human being, or a pulsar!

  174. Sorry, Richard, but I just can't start 'defining' or 'utilizing' existing quantum 'mechanical' particles, as I am no expert thereupon. The only thing I can 'see' (if it might be called that), is the beauty (NOT your 'Beauty' particle!), wonder, magnificence, and complexity, of the 'system' that exists on the Incorporeal side of that 'Scale of Life'! THAT is what the Guy Upstairs 'shows' me, IN MY MIND, in Consciousness, and, of course, you, and the 'establishment', might 'question' such 'Reality' until 'hell freezes over'! But that is the way I 'see' it, as a gigantic, complex, adaptive 'system', WHOLISTICALLY INTEGRATED, as to Corporeality and Incorporeality, 'cause' and 'effect', however defined! I prefer to KNOW the Incorporeal side, as 'shown' to me, and to merely analyze the results thereof on the Corporeal side, which is what I have done in the pages of QUFD.

  175. You are the expert on Corporeality, Richard, my 'analyses', as they are, concentrating on the psychological and sociological 'results' of those Incorporeal 'dynamics', which you may have no interest in whatsoever, as to psychology/sociology. But your challenge, which I most sincerely give you my Blessings therewith, IS TO SCIENTIFICALLY, LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY, define those questions and matters which may yet be unclear AS TO SUCH a 'system'! And the joy for you, as it has been for me, is to FIND THOSE ANSWERS within yourself, and of your own 'doing', to those questions that you might ask! Because ONLY in doing so, will you truly KNOW the 'answer', whatever it may be, and thusly be able to CONFIDENTLY 'answer' unto the 'Establishment', as to whatever might come therefrom!

  176. Best Wishes, Richard, and as I like to say, "May the Force Be With You!"

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    (6 Jan 7:34)
    Father Jerome

  177. Thanks for such a lengthy response. The following is a quote from your post below:
    "the psychological and sociological 'results' of those Incorporeal 'dynamics'"

  178. You are correct that this is the main import of your work. I found it very interesting and have no reason to quarrel with it. A lot of it I already had belief in. Other aspects, such as the usefulness of sexual relations, I found to be new yet quite supportive of where I am in my life.

  179. However, as you say, I am trying to cast essentially the same model, an axion condensate being the fundamental consciousness, into language that is acceptable to scientists. I have given you some examples in previous posts, such as temperatures less than absolute zero [again, something I never said!], of where your model disconnects with physics. Absolute values less than zero is equivalent to the magnitude of a negative number being negative. It is not allowed by definition. The magnitude of a negative number is positive by definition. You would have to show that particle velocity can be an imaginary number to get negative absolute values of temperature.

  180. Here is an example that occurred to me more recently. The axion particle, as defined by GUT theory, is a spin one particle. Axions are not spin 1/2 particles, at least as presently understood. Photinos are spin 1/2 particles. They are the supersymmetric partner of the photon. They are supposed to be very massive in comparison to the axion and therefore require very low temperature to form a condensate. So they are not likely to be the 1/2 spin particles that you say make up the self and the Self. There seems to be no known particle that fits your model.

  181. Perhaps you think that whether a particle is spin one or spin 1/2 are corporeal considerations. But in my mind these particles are intrinsic to QUFD and therefore in the incorporeal realm. Please ask the guy upstairs to elucidate on these disconnects between your model and conventional science.

    Regards,
    Richard

    (7 Jan 14:08)
    Richard

  182. Okay, before I let the Guy Upstairs 'speak' (and I just 'feel' all kinds of stuff 'bulging' at my synapses, in response to some of your comments), let me inquire of you, oh most Corporeally-knowledgeable one, what the exact details are, because you have put a 'bug' up my somewhere and I just can't remember the exact details. You say, "Absolute values less than zero is equivalent to the magnitude of a negative number being negative. It is not allowed by definition." What this 'reminds' me of (which I can't remember the exact details of), is that Einstein and whoever, in mathematical quadratics, calculus, or whatever, had some such similar term or function, which was beyond 'definition', into which (that term/function) were 'lumped' all mathematical 'results' which could not be less than zero! In other words, any positive result 'resulted' in a quadratic 'equation' (if that is what it was called), but any 'result' that would be negative, or less than zero, was deemed an 'impossibility' and somehow the equation was thusly 'factored' to be zero, but nothing less! But then, if I remember right, years later, along came some reputable and respected theoretician who said that there WERE 'solutions' of less than zero possibility! But what it took to obtain these less than zero 'solutions', I don't remember!

  183. This further reminds me of several of the 'definitions' that I have rendered on the pages of QUFD, as to what the 'other side' of ZERO might be like, as to 'dimensionality', assuming that all negative values and negative 'results', 'passing over' zero, into a negative 'dimensionality' (OF Consciousness and Incorporeality, or 'undifferentiated relativity'), are actually the result of a phase-space-shifting to another 'dimension', or a 'parallel world', as some popular scientists are prone to overuse such a term today. Anyway, in QUFD I relate the various possibilities from (I think) 3 different perspectives, all of which might come from 'systems engineering', one of which is definitely 'systems' perspective, i.e., if you input, to a mixer, 1Mhz and 3 Mhz signals, you can get the sum thereof (1+3=4), but where (but on the other side of zero) is the 'difference' signal (1-3=-2)? I think I had 2 other 'perspectives', but I don't remember what they were, except as to 'principle', which is that the other side of zero is another 'dimension', NOT of the 'corporeality' which informs the positive side of zero. In other words, Incorporeality!

  184. Anyway, back to your further 'musings'. Half-spin particles ONLY EXIST TEMPORARILY in the human Mind, taking the place of where there should be WHOLE integer-spin particles (if you can call thousands of years a 'temporary' situation!) Cooper-pairing (Pos-Neg-Pos) of the individual local Mind, IS NOT NORMAL! Instead of half-Positive/half-Negative/half-Positive (Pos lower self/Negativity/Pos upper Soul), a WHOLE and Complete, i.e., Normal, Mature, human Mind, would normally consist of a whole-spin Pos axion-condensate self, interfacing with a whole-spin Pos axion-condensate Soul, WITHOUT any Cooper-paired Negativity between them AT ALL! It is the Cooper-pairing, the 'intrusion' of Negativity, from the Negative 'dimension' that surrounds Earth and all of humanity, THAT CAUSES the resulting half-spin axion particles, of BOTH Positive AND Negative 'sub-condensates' of the human mind (the two mind condensates, self and Soul), as well as the intruding 'fingers of Negativity'! BOTH Positivity AND Negativity are affected, but Negativity apparently is willing to endure such 'modification' in order to 'have the chance' (via Cooper-pairing) of 'influencing' the normal phase-space-shift 'dynamics' that would normally take place between Soul and self, IF it were not for the fact that Negativity WAS THERE, in between both.

  185. But this gets back to where the 'problem' started in the first place - GENETICS - as already mentioned in several previous emails to you as well as in the pages of QUFD! QUFD says that there is a human gene pool THAT CREATES Incorporeal Mind ONLY, having nothing whatsoever to do with the 'creation' of ANY Corporeal bodily function, EXCEPT Incorporeal Mind! And within that gene pool is/are the specific genes that enable phase-space-shifting between Incorporeal 'dimensions' (the lower-mind self-condensate 'dimension', and the upper-Mind Soul-condensate 'dimension'), JUST AS that very 'dynamic', phase-space-shifting, ALSO INFORMS the Cosmos and the Cosmic 'dynamics' that take place AS WELL within Cosmic Life-form 'entities', ranging from quantum particles up to the most immense temperature-density-Sentient Life-forms imaginable! (I'll let someone else figure out the 'interface' 'dynamics' of Cosmic entities! I have only defined the interface within the human Mind!)

  186. So Genetics is the problem, because ONLY through and BY THE WILL of ALL of humanity, the ENTIRE GENE POOL (of humanity), can that Cooper-paired 'intrusion' unto the nominal human mind BE REVERSED and eliminated! Normal mental function, of a Mature human Mind, fully functional AND COMPLETE, WITHOUT any 'fingers of Negativity' intruding thereupon, HAS EXISTED in the Past AND CAN AGAIN! It is a question of mankind 'recognizing', and understanding, the 'Negativity' that 'infuses' his/her Life, AND THEN DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT! If such Negativity 'results' in competition, animosities, hate, wars and on and on, then COOPERATION, Love, Peace, Justice and all the Positive 'attributes' of mankind ARE WHAT IS NEEDED to 'drive out' Lucifer and his Cooper-paired 'fingers of Negativity' that are currently 'influencing' each and every action and thought of every human being! We can 'see' the 'possibilities', the 'What-Might-Be', in the random phase-space-shifting of our dreams, which are uncontrolled, in their Cooper-paired IMMATURITY, versus the ABSOLUTE CONTROL of such phase-space-shifting that would be the 'norm' of a NON-Cooper-paired human Mind of MATURITY AND access to the Soul! As Jung has said, as long as that [Cooper-paired] 'Veil of Separation/Veil of Unknowing' (the 'fingers of Negativity') exists between self and Soul, the self CANNOT KNOW, or access, conscientiously or consciously, the Soul of oneself, and is thusly left with only the temporary, fleeting memories and substance of the 'self' - me-ism, because when one cannot KNOW their Soul, all one has is self! BUT THE SOUL is necessary, to the very existence of man! And thusly Love, Happiness, and all the other 'What-Might-Be' of our dreams, IS REALIZED within society, religion, entertainment, and on and on, IN SUCH 'inspiring' spectacles as "The Robe", "Exodus", and today, in "The Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars" ("May the Force Be With You!"), and on and on! BUT until that day, when ALL of humanity can COOPERATE, in Peace, Love and more with each other ...... THEN our INNATE, inborn Genetics, WILL ELIMINATE that Cooper-paired 'intrusion' of Lucifer's 'dimension' upon our minds and functioning, and humanity and the human Mind will be restored to WHOLENESS! BUT it takes ALL OF US, together!

  187. Okay, Richard, sorry for 'Theologizing' here, but the 'Theology of Reality' DOES ENCOMPASS not only the Incorporeal 'dynamics' of the human mind and its functions, BUT ALSO the analytical 'results' OF those mental functions, AS FELT within human society and the human individual! If some of the 'science' of such 'Theologizing' is yet beyond the understanding of the scientific establishment (which could probably care less about 'Theology'!), I am sorry! But in relating this to you, and in merely re-telling what the pages AND THEOLOGY of QUFD have already put forth, I am trying to at least 'cross-over' TO some sort of Corporeal understanding of what has been 'delivered to me' in Incorporeality! By and thru such 'telling', I do hope to be able to not only have the layman 'see' the 'dynamics', AND the 'Negativities', of that gigantic 'system' that exists 'out there' AND 'in here', in our minds, but to also have respectable scientists such as yourself FULLY AND COMPLETELY EXPLAIN 'what-in-the-heck-is-going-on' AT and IN the CORPOREALITY and INCORPOREALITY of that 'system'. Many 'laymen' can already 'see' it, but they have had their 'inner visions' (their own Truths) confirmed by and through their own experiences (as well as such things as "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars" and otherwise), but the scientific establishment is not as it once-upon-a-time WAS, i.e. experiential and (what is the word I am trying to remember here?) Anyway, it needs 'proof', and as much as I say proof is NOT Incorporeal, just maybe, Richard, you can somehow 'see' the 'proof-in-the-pudding' that can enable science to 'see' the 'dynamics' of this 'system'!

    Jerome

    (7 Jan 21:52)
    Father Jerome

  188. Allow me to seize on one small aspect of your post. But I do think it is crucial. Here is the quote:
    "QUFD says that there is a human gene pool THAT CREATES Incorporeal Mind ONLY, "

  189. Now you introduced QUFD as a theory [NO! I never said QUFD was a 'theory', except with reference to science as part of the multidisciplinary nature of QUFD. I have always said that QUFD is FACT and Reality, NOT 'theory'!] with certain postulates and principles and relationships that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with genetics. It's all physics.

  190. So I wonder where or rather HOW you can say that QUFD says anything at all about genetics? [Here Dr. Ruquist seems to indicate that he has not as yet 'read' QUFD at all, or has somehow 'overlooked' all the QUFD references and notes concerning genetics!] Is this more direct revelation that you just assign to QUFD? It seems to me to be completely unconnected to the condensate. You introduce the condensate and then after a while you suddenly say that all this genetics comes out of it. [NOT out, genetics CREATES the condensate!] But I fail to see any connection. I do not see any connections on your website either. [Certainly so if the reader has overlooked or not 'wished to see' such subjects as the 'reader' did not wish to 'see'!]

  191. I am not saying that it is incorrect. But from the viewpoint of a quantum model, it seems to be completely speculative. Perhaps all the direct revelation you get in your mind is automatically assigned to the QUFD model. But I fail to see any connection. [Again correct, as such things would be incomprehensible to a quantum 'mechanic' or, Heaven Forbid, a Newtonian, but not to a Physicist of the Quantum!]

    Richard

    (8 Jan 17:46)
    Richard

  192. Whoa! There is no place (that I can remember or find) on the QUFD website where I say that QUFD is exclusively 'Physics' in nature. If I assign any 'predominancy' to anything, it is 'Philosophical'! But many places do I note that it is not only philosophical, but also scientific (specifically Quantum Physics), psychological, sociological, theological and more!

  193. The gene pool that creates human mind is mentioned in the second half of the Qufd2 Main Document as well as in several other documents, including documents of the QUALIA series dealing with Maturity and Immaturity of the human mind. The 'info' regarding that genepool comes from both popular scientific publications as well as from 'direct revelation', if you might. Sorry, Richard, but with over 1600 webpages to the QUFD website, I can't remember what is on each page, and the Main Document is only one page, even though it does take about 37 hours to read! I have emails from readers who say they have put in 1000's of hours reading QUFD.

  194. But as you note, genetics is also a key to the formulation of the QUFD 'system' and the Principles thereof. Is there anything else that I can agree with you on, Richard? And Hey! You may not think so, but I saw an excellent movie video the other day that reminded me of numerous QUFD 'principles' - "StepMom", starring Julia Roberts.

    Jerome

    (9 Jan 7:56)
    Father Jerome

  195. QUFD means quantum unitary field dynamics. Nothing in that name implies genetics nor can any genetics presently be derived from quantum theory. [A 'deficiency' of quantum theory, as I so imply in QUFD!] So if you say that genetics is a principle of QUFD then I believe you are misleading the public into thinking that genetics can be derived from quantum theory. [It certainly CAN and such is certainly NOT misleading the public, but merely telling the TRUTH that Newtonians and Quantum 'Mechanics' would not wish the public to know!]

  196. In short, what you call QUFD is not a theory but instead a number of postulates that is more accurately named Jerome Philosophy. Scientists consider giving a philosophy or religion a physics name, like Scientology for example, to be inappropriate. Of course many religions claim to be scientific like Christian Science and even Buddhism. But scientists do not agree and take affront at what they consider is a misuse of the word science. [In this the reader might check the link, about halfway down the Opening Page of the QUFD website, to the 'Great Ideas' website of the great Philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, where Dr. Adler (who was the Chairman of the Board and primary influence behind the Encyclopaedia Britannica!) states the 'relationships' between science, philosophy and religion (or Spirit), placing the 'social and human intelligence value' of science at the 'bottom of the totem pole', following philosophy which, in turn, follows 'religion/Spirit', as the highest human value!]

  197. Your work is philosophy in the sense that you derive logical consequences from your hypotheses. [I have never said that QUFD is 'hypothetical'! I have even said that QUFD is NOT 'opinion', but is TRUTH!] But it is not physics. ['Physics' as defined by a quantum 'mechanic', NOT a Physicist of the Quantum!] Some of your hypotheses are in physics. But as far as I can tell, you have not derived any physics consequences. As you say, they are all "psychological, sociological, theological and more!"

  198. There is not a single testable or even falsible physics consequence in QUFD. [Correct! QUFD is NOT Newtonian nor Quantum 'Mechanics', but is pure Incorporeal Quantum Physics!] I do not mean to demean your work. I happen to believe that it is true. But by implying that it is a theory in physics [which I have never done!], you are misleading us, and doing yourself a dis-service as well, as it is easily recognized, at least by physicists, that it is not a physics theory and therefore it is disregarded as pure speculation. [Not by true Physicists of the Quantum, who can certainly recognize the incorporeal Truths thereof!]

  199. Call it a Genetic Unitary Philosophy based on postulated properties of the Unitary Field and postulated genetics - Genutarianism for short - for it is genuine.

    Regards,
    Richard

    (9 Jan 13:18)

  200. Well, Richard, I'll agree with your 'definitions' for the sake of agreement, for it doesn't change the 'nature' or substance of my Work, QUFD. Many places throughout the pages of QUFD I state that QUFD includes philosophy, science, psychology, sociology, and other ANALYSES from various disciplines, all of them HAVING A BASIS of some sort in Quantum Physics. Quantum Unitary Field Dynamics is the basis of QUFD, but like any system, it encompasses knowledge of much more, as physics itself cannot exist alone and independent of all the causes and effects that come to it or derive from it, to and from many other disciplines.

  201. So I have no problem with what it is called, QUFD, because the primary 'function' of QUFD is to detail and define the 'dynamics' that take place in human and cosmic Consciousness and the 'basis' of those 'dynamics' starts from quantum physics AS SEEN from a unitary field perspective. And I'll agree with you further that many things that I have said on the pages of QUFD do not 'agree' with the scientific establishment, but, just as you render an 'opinion', I feel that I have NOT rendered an 'opinion' (from the logic of philosophical discourse) but have instead rendered a 'Truth', and thusly, from such a perspective, it is science that is 'wrong' and I have said as much!

    Best Regards,
    Jerome

    (11 Jan 14:03)
    Richard

  202. As to the ACCURATELY multidisciplinary nature of QUFD ...... science, physics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, medical science, antiquities sciences, neurophysics, history, anthropology (besides genetics, there is even discussion on anthropological genetics and anthropological electromagnetics), paleontology, cosmology, electromagnetohydrodynamics (Have you read the pages discussing how the Mohorovicic Discontinuity Layer relates to humanity and consciousness?) and so on, this listing is found at the very top of the QUFD Opening Page. For a more complete listing yet of all subjects of discussion within the QUFD website, check the following pages: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/index.html, 'keywords.html' and 'fields.html' (at http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/, the QUFD website) ...... and for the QUFD website's relevancy and applicability to Consciousness, humanity and the Cosmos, I think Danah Zohar, the eminent Theoretical Physicist from Harvard and Cambridge University, England, expressed it best (quoted on the pages of QUFD, but I don't remember exactly where right off or her exact words, so the following is a paraphrase of her quotation):
    "I was confronted with a brand new career, which necessitated that I learn and absorb everything there is to know about Quantum Physics and QUFD, in order to adequately render the 'professionalism' required by that career. That career was MOTHERHOOD!"

  203. QUFD discusses, and presents, Reality and Life (human and Cosmic), AS A COMPLETE and Holistic SYSTEM, with all aspects thereof interrelated and integral TO the functioning and 'dynamics' of each other! In other words, the 'Big Picture', rather than the individual 'tree' or 'forest' that scientists are well-known to devote all their 'knowing' to, to the exclusion of all other Realities of Life! Dr. M. Scott Peck, M.D. (quoted in the QUFD QUALIA 3 Document at http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/SymVio.html) accurately relates the history and consequences of this situation on the pages of QUFD. QUFD even (on one of its pages) relates the quantum physics of the famous truth, that 'a butterfly flapping its wings in an Amazonian forest will cause the earthquake that destroys that mountain village in Japan'! QUFD also shows what quantum physics has to do with human beings murdering each other following the eating of Brie Cheese! IN OTHER WORDS, the pages of QUFD RELATE TO human REALITY! All I have done is to take basic, fundamental truths and realities (of BOTH Incorporeality AND Corporeality!), and put them into a context where the Reader thereof can see their APPLICABILITY TO one's own Life, in order to enable that person TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT the 'problems' in one's Life, that prevent the person from 'Being' the Who and What which one was BORN TO BE!

  204. For such a 'Service' to humanity, I MAKE NO APOLOGY! QUFD is what it is! It is NOT some 'limited', narrow, scientific 'specialization', attempting to tell the world that such a 'specialization' is important, WHEN IT IS, but completely ignoring everything else that is relevant about Life, INCLUDING HOW that particular 'specialization' CONTRIBUTES to the WHOLE of Life! This is the reason that QUFD is primarily written for 5 year-old kids, who can understand such 'complexities and simplicities', BEFORE they are 'educated' by the 'SYSTEM', and become adults who cannot, then, understand QUFD!

  205. Readers around the world, both kids and adults, have given their imprimatur TO QUFD, because it has meant something to their Lives. Otherwise, I wouldn't have people telling me that they are spending thousands of hours and months upon months reading QUFD, IF IT DIDN'T have relevancy somehow in their Lives, whatever their individual situation may BE, as such can ONLY be known BY THE INDIVIDUAL! SO I have nothing to apologize for, Richard. I have provided a Service and you have asked me for further details on a VERY SMALL PORTION (almost one page, exclusively!) of QUFD (of the 1600+ pages currently listed by the Search Engine, Google!) and I have obliged, TO THE EXTENT to which QUFD relates thereto! QUFD does NOT go into and 'specialize' in ANY particular discipline or scientific 'specialty'! QUFD is holistic (but certainly NOT 'New Age'!) It is not a 'tree' or even the 'forest', but it DOES deal with, and explain, BASICS, sufficient enough for an individual to understand whatever it is one needs to understand AND TO TAKE ACTION with regard to one's Life! Such is the reason that numbers of other websites on the Web, completely unrelated to the QUFD website, have, in fact, copied many pages of the QUFD website unto their own website, for which 'plagiarism' I completely condone, in that the Copyright on the QUFD website does allow any and all such 'Copy' of QUFD, AS LONG AS CREDIT therefor is given!

  206. I have provided to you, Richard, both my thoughts (which are mostly already to be found on the pages of QUFD) and some further suggestions, relative to the particular and 'specialized' concerns which you have inquired about. Further development with such 'specialty/discipline' I can only leave to you, as to Corporeal or Incorporeal 'realities' going beyond such 'Basics' as I have described. I have no doubts as to such 'Basics' as I have put forth and their relevancy to Life, but as to any particular individual 'definitions', details and necessities WITHIN YOUR 'specialization', apparently I cannot help you further on such!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    (11 Jan 19:04)
    Father Jerome

  207. I am a little confused by your extensive reply. I did not criticize your philosophy or your psychology or your sociology or your theology or your genetics. I merely asked some questions regarding the connection between the condensate and the physical brain. And you essentially told me to find the answers myself, and you applauded me when I made some small steps.

  208. I did say that the name of your whole system QUFD was misleading, at least to a physicist, who expected something like a physics theory. And I pointed out some statements that were out of context like below zero absolute temperatures that physicists would have difficulty believing.

  209. I must say however that you defend my small criticisms of the physics of your system of thought by saying that it is the TRUTH. You have said nothing at all about why it is true. Apparently it is true because god [How about a little respect for the Man/Lady Upstairs? Capitalization of His/Her Name is the socially acceptable means of such 'respect'!] told you so. If that is why, just say so. But it is not true because you say so, if you say so without any scientific justification. [As detailed on the pages of QUFD (the pages that Dr. Ruquist hasn't yet read!), such 'statements' originating from corporeality (the physical/material 'world') might be considered to be 'opinion', 'theory', 'speculation' or whatever, but NOT 'Truth'! 'Truth' can ONLY originate FROM SPIRIT, from Incorporeality, from the Positivity OF Infinite Consciousness (God), and ONLY to one of Mature Mind, or who, at least, is able to 'access', In The Moment, the Incorporeality and Realities, and thusly the 'Truth', of one's SOUL!] - except maybe if you are god. That's a possibility. But then I cannot understand why god cannot work with me to make the physics you claim to be the TRUTH comprehensible and believable to physicists. [Have YOU tried 'working' with Him, instead of Him 'working' with you?]

  210. Are you god? Or is your TRUTH derived from god, directly or indirectly. Or is it just how you happen to feel about things. Can you answer these questions directly without circumvention? [I believe the gentleman actually means circumspection.]

  211. In most of your responses you circumvent my questions. Now perhaps I am not worthy of a direct reply. But then you would not waste your time writing such long posts. So I have to conclude that you deem me worthy. [Why does this man need someone else to deem him worthy?] But I am not trying to undermine your work. I just want to make sense of it in terms of the science I know. [But misunderstanding the 'science' one does not know does not help!]

  212. There must be science that nobody knows but god, and much more that I do not know. So your connection is quite valuable in pointing the way for research. And so I have asked questions at the boundaries of my knowledge. But frankly, you seem to avoid answering them.

    Regards,
    Richard

    (12 Jan)
    Richard

  213. Now I am perplexed by your response, Richard. I have extensively answered your questions to the best of my KNOWING, quite more so than most other readers who have emailed me, who apparently, take my answers and can then 'run with them', wherever they need to 'run'. I have not been evasive or circumstantial in any way that I can see. True, I cannot 'see' the 'path' that you are trying to 'run' (only you know that!), but somehow I get the message that you are telling me that my answers are insufficient for your questions or for the 'path' that you 'see', but which I do not 'see'.

  214. Richard, I have, as I have told you, responded to you and referred you to pages of QUFD which MAY have answered your questions. All that 'info' that I have provided comes from, as I have said, either the scientists or persons who I mentioned to you (and much of which is by way of the Collective) OR directly from 'Consciousness', however you may interpret that. And I am NOT God, but I do listen to Him, and I do trust in what I receive from Him. I am sorry if my replies are insufficient and not 'scientific' enough for your requirements, Richard. Perhaps, instead of seeking answers from a 'third-party' (myself), perhaps He wants you to ask Him directly.

    Jerome

    1 Feb 2003 10:32 EST
    Father Jerome,

  215. I have just finished writing my paper for that conference. It will occur during the week of March 15, 2003 at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

  216. I cannot afford to go. But another presenter who lives nearby in Providence has agreed to post the paper for me.

  217. I am feeling quite good about how the paper came out. It mentions your material prominently, but not without some judgements on my part, as we discussed via emails some time ago.

  218. I am attaching the paper for your perusal and criticism. I hope that you consider what I have written to be accurate and fair. Please feel free to criticize. It may anger you? But then again your work will get some exposure in the world of Penrose, et al., and you might be pleased?

  219. Let's work together.

    Respectfully,
    Richard

    3 Feb 2003 15:17 EST
    Richard

  220. Good to hear from you again. I have at present another dialogue going with another researcher regarding QUFD but you have no worry in this respect as he is not presenting a respected paper at a conference as you are.

  221. I Thank you very much for the copy of your paper. I have downloaded it and will read it as soon as I have time. Yes, I agree, we had our differences on some matters. But such is all well and good, because it gives other researchers something to think about, as to possible alternatives to what they might think about and even what you are thinking about. Your criticisms of QUFD were appreciated and I am quite sure you realize that whatever I might have said was merely a 'defense' of QUFD as I did see it, just as you did surely view my comments regarding your perspectives as merely coming from someone who did not necessarily 'see' that which you were 'seeing' in whatever the Guy Upstairs was showing unto you directly.

  222. I will wish you the Best with your Paper, Richard. Sorry to hear you will not be able to be there in person. Will your 'presenter' be able to adequately 'answer' those questions that you were expecting from others there?

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    3 Feb 2003 16:06 EST
    Father Jerome,

  223. Thank you for your kind words. I certainly hold no hard feelings. And in fact just feel a little guilty about replies that might have seemed a little harsh. But truth is the first priority and each of us has to speak our truth. The guy upstairs is making it all happen anyway.

  224. But please, when you get the chance, read and criticize the paper.

  225. Edmond Chouinard is posting my paper. He and I have pretty much the same endeavor, to make religion and science more compatible. I expect that you share this intention as well. I will visit him sometime in the next few weeks to discuss the paper. He is presenting the experimental results of human intention on plants at that conference.

  226. In fact, Ed wrote a paper that is on-line, called the Holographic Mind, that comes close to what I have wrote but without the concreteness of saying that consciousness is embedded in dark matter.

  227. I hope to stay in touch with you. I certainly will let you know what the results of the conference are. If you have a mailing list for notice of additions to your site, I would like to be put on it.

  228. By the way, if you are familiar with Bohm Theory, I finally just claimed that the axions are the medium in which his hidden variables operate.

  229. That solves the axion brain coupling issue as the hidden variable medium guides every particle in the universe, something like GOD of all nature. But it just enlarges the coupling question to what properties of axions allow them to guide all particles. Bohm and his students and followers seemingly considered the 'hidden variables' to be a sort of magic without ever thinking that a material medium could account for it. But I am a materialist. I think the impact of the paper, hopefully, will be to ground Bohm theory in the axion condensate and open up the coupling mechanism question for scientists.

    Hope to hear from you,

    Respectfully,
    Richard

    3 Feb 2003 16:58 EST
    Father Jerome

  230. It just occurred to foolish me that I can just copy the paper into the email text and save you the trouble of downloading it.
    A Dark Matter Model of Consciousness
    	
    Richard Ruquist,  PhD
    yanniru@fiwd.org
    The Yanniru Foundation
    79 Rice Street
    Cambridge, MA02140
    	
    	An axion condensate,
    a likely constituent of Dark Matter,
    may be the medium of non-local consciousness,
    and may as well be the 'hidden variable' medium of Bohm Theory
    	
    	In this paper, the principal message is the medium, not the model. However, having presented the argument for consciousness embedded in Dark Matter, we mention its consistency with a model of consciousness presented at this conference (QM2003)..
    	
    1. BEC media posited for conscious
    	
            (Dr. Ruquist's Paper continues - omitted here.  However, it is presented on this website in its entirety at: Dark Matter)
    
    3 Feb 2003 20:33 EST
    Richard

  231. Haven't read your last 2 postings as yet, but here is my response to reading the paper.

  232. Read your Paper and found it to be outstanding, as an example of current scientific thinking. You have much to be proud of and hopefully your colleagues at the conference can do justification to your efforts.

  233. As far as your references to QUFD, I will say that there were some minor incorrections, but I had mentioned them to you in our emails and if you chose to overlook them it is of no consequence, as the overall 'gist' of the matter (the Paper) is correct. However, the one 'incorrection' that I will mention, which I asked you about several times in our emails, is: Could you please tell me where in QUFD I have said that there is such a thing as below absolute zero temperatures? I would certainly wish to correct such a mistake, but I have been unable to find such a statement anywhere! Perhaps you could tell me on what page I said such a thing. I sure can't find it, and since it is certainly not correct, I do need to remove it!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    4 Feb 2003 1:48 EST
    Father Jerome,

  234. Here is the relevant quote from your site:
    "The condensate-field exists at whatever the AMBIENT TEMPERATURE of that ground-state may be, and such temperatures may range from the infinitely cold (below 0 K, even) to the infinitely hot."

  235. The below 0 K should be removed. It is found on the first page of your description of QUFD starting with the spin one positive and negative charged axions and the spin 1/2 positive and negative charged axions.

  236. Just three paragraphs below this quote:
  237. "1. BY DEFINITION, I do so identify the basic and necessary Particle of Universal Consciousness as being the Quantum Axion Particle, a microcosmically quantum unit of four predominantly differing "flavors":
    • A Positive Particle of positive half-integer spin.
    • A Negative Particle of negative half-integer spin.
    • A Positive Particle of positive integer spin.
    • A Negative Particle of negative integer spin.
    • Additionally, a Particle of any one of the "flavors" MAY have ANY combination or variation OF such quantum spin."

  238. If you remove that I'll rewrite that part of the paper. We have another month and 1/2 to finalize it.

    Yours,
    Richard

    4 Feb 2003 11:00 EST
    Father Jerome,

  239. I rewrote the paper based on your statement that it's incorrect to say that temperatures below 0K are possible. Whether you change the site is up to you. Here is the revised paper. I think it puts your work in a much more favorable light. Please take the time to criticize my review of your work. It might get the attention of some important academics. We have at least a month to straighten things out.

    Yours,
    Richard

    4 Feb 2003 22:36 EST
    Richard

  240. Thank you, Richard. The mistake is my use of 'K' in that statement, where I was thinking 'below 0 F, even', which is a big difference. I will certainly revise that.

  241. As to the second part of your post, re: 1. By Definition??? Where is the below absolute zero quote here? I don't see it in your post, and the definition itself does agree with further sections of QUFD where the particular spin of particles in a particular configuration is noted, where I definitely state that a whole-integer spin configuration is NORMAL but a half-integer spin IS AN ABNORMAL CONDITION.

  242. Please advise.

  243. Incidentally, as I quickly looked over your Paper I noted that there was something in one of your early sections that seemed to agree with QUFD, it was not in the QUFD section, and I wanted to congratulate you on that 'clarification', from whatever 'sources' you did obtain such. When I have some time again, I will re-read your Paper again and find that section which I thought so highly of.

    Best Regards,
    Jerome

    5 Feb 2003 3:16 EST
    Richard

  244. Regarding your Paper, some comments:
    RE: NDE
    "...means that consciousness in the secondary medium can be visible [and physical, in that 'dimension'] and that it contains a storage of information as well as intelligent beings."

  245. Okay, Been there, Done That, but your scientific friends will not want to hear about someone's 'travels into Consciousness' and being in other dimensions of reality, which are such things as discussed on the QUFD website. They might 'entertain' the concept of a BEC condensate of dark matter consciousness being the 'secondary medium'. Yes, it is visible and physical, when one's consciousness (in sleep OR in waking controlled phase-space-shift OF one's consciousness) travels from this 'dimension' (our physical world) to another 'dimension' (a parallel world of physicality). Yes, such consciousness contains MANY condensates, including Carl Jung's Collective Consciousness of all of humanity, but since time and space do not exist in a unitary condensate, the storage of information is forever and everywhere (wherever there is 'access' thereto). Intelligent beings do exist, and do have consciousness. All of this I have related on the pages of QUFD. I have personally 'conversed' with a rock (whose consciousness condensate 'couples' to a time/space corporeality in which one of our seconds would be, instead, billions of years). Of course, our condensates of Mind couple to a temporality and spatial dimensionality that is recorded in seconds of time. But, when one's Mind phase-space-shifts into another unitary dimension of that Cosmic unitary field, the spatial/temporality status is not necessarily the same as ours (like when I was talking to an ANT, recorded on the pages of QUFD, an ant being a very intelligent being). Or how about conversing with a pulsar. Or how about 'Being There', in the minds of the Columbia Space Shuttle Astronauts, in their last moments? (I was NOT there, but I WAS 'there', in Christa McAuliffe's mind, in the Challenger Shuttle disaster, just as I was in Christ's Mind upon the Cross, ALL of this recorded in the pages of the QUFD website).

  246. Okay further, QUFD, as I have said, distinguishes between differentiated relativity (corporeality) and undifferentiated relativity (incorporeality). Thusly, as to your coupling mechanisms, you have said that there was an incorporeal portion of an axion particle and wave function that exist with every corporeal axion particle and wave function, by which, if it is a wave collapse of the axion particle in corporeality that 'moves' the H2 molecule of every synapse, then it is the quantum 'correlated' invisible and incorporeal particle and wave function ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DIVIDE between differentiated relativity and undifferentiated relativity (the incorporeal side) which also has a 'wave collapse', but it is a wave collapse of timeless and spaceless non-differentiated relativity IN THAT UNITARY FIELD on that side of the divide, i.e., that non-physical 'dimension' of the condensate of the Mind versus our physical 'dimension' of the brain (actually, that individual synapse). [These particular 'details' of this gentleman's sought for 'coupling mechanism' are repeated several times more in subsequent emails by Dr. Ruquist and Father Jerome, for even though it seems to quite definitely and finally 'get down to the nitty-gritty' and explain the details of the 'coupling mechanism' it is, however, not acknowledged in Dr. Ruquist's replies, indicating that the good Doctor just did not understand that the very answer he had been looking for was being described here and now, but he was not 'seeing it' because he could not encompass certain realities of Incorporeality that he was yet 'defining' from a Corporeal perspective rather than an Incorporeal perspective.]

  247. Okay, QUFD also states that if Consciousness is infinite, then contained within the Cosmic sea or ocean of Consciousness that is Infinite Consciousness (God), is therefore the entire Cosmos, by which such a definition means not only our entire Universe but also ALL Universes, ALL 'dimensions' (sub-condensates). By this definition, 'dimensions' thusly number as infinite! Thusly, as I believe Danah Zohar has so said, "Our Universe is but a bubble on the Cosmic Ocean of Infinite Consciousness. It (the Universe) could also be but a thought in the Mind of God!" (Danah Zohar, as quoted in one of her books.)

  248. RE: "... as wave function extent depends inversely on the mass of the particle, the wave function extends ..."

  249. Okay, I am going to repeat. Wave function collapse of the axion particle on the corporeal side (differentiated relativity) HAS time, space, mass and such, but on the incorporeal side (undifferentiated relativity), time, space, mass (if so!), ARE UNITARY, so the wave collapse of the incorporeal side of an axion particle IS TIMELESS, SPACELESS and maybe even massless, in that we are talking of a condition where past/present/future are ONE! ALSO, when you are talking about wave collapse in the synapse of the brain (actually the glial nuclei), you are talking about WHOLE-integer-spin-particle 'results'. But when you are talking about the 'dynamics' that produce, or trigger, that wave collapse FROM THE OTHER SIDE, from incorporeality, you are talking ABOUT THE MIND, NOT THE BRAIN, and the Mind is currently composed of 1/2 spin particle condensates Cooper-paired.

  250. You say, "Briefly the model is that the human brain [NO! No! The Mind!] contains a dipole-layer [??? Not quite right!] of + & - axions ..." Not quite correct! Both mind condensates - on the MIND side, NOT on the brain side - upper and lower Mind, would normally be of unitary spin particles (AGAIN, on the undifferentiated relativity side!), but all of humanity currently has 1/2 spin particles INSTEAD in both condensates of the entire individual local mind, an abnormal condition. This is explained further on the pages of QUFD, as resulting from a combination of human genetics AND the fact of both Positive and Negative axion particle 'dimensionalities' currently existing in the Cosmos!

  251. Also, Jerome does not claim a 'Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics', but instead I hold a D.Sc. in Quantum Physics (which is philosophical, not mathematical).

  252. Also note, the URL address you give for the QUFD website no longer exists. I have removed the http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qufd2.html#shortcut as superfluous. The correct URL for the QUFD website is http://go.to/QUFD

  253. I will correct the mistake regarding below zero K as soon as I can do so.

  254. I hope this helps.

    Jerome

    5 Feb 2003 9:00 EST
    Father Jerome,

  255. Thank you for a closer inspection of my paper. I had already addressed some of your concerns, like the use of the word Brain and I did not use the word 'wave collapse'. I copy the most recent version of the paper below.

  256. Regarding NDE and OBE, the best source is Swedenborg. But this is so controversial that I wanted to limit my remarks to data presented at the conference.

  257. Regarding 'dimension', I prefer not to use that word as you have a different definition than the other scientists at the conference.

  258. Regarding this quote: "Thusly, as to your coupling mechanisms, you have said that there was an incorporeal portion of an axion particle and wave function that exist with every corporeal axion particle and wave function"

  259. Me: Actually, if I understand your concept of 'incorporeality', I think all axions are incorporeal, they are all in the BEC. In the present version of the paper, I just say the coupling is incorporeal. That would agree with Bohm Theory. [ Note: As mentioned below, the Cooper-pairs are bosons, but either chargeless or a dipole, and have either zero or unitary spin, but they are still incorporeal because they are in a BEC.]

  260. Regarding this statement: "Wave function collapse of the axion particle on the corporeal side". Me: I do not see how the axion could ever be corporeal. The BEC is timeless, spaceless- incorporeal- just because the wave functions are nearly infinite due to the nearly massless axions. But that should apply to all axions, even Cooper-pairs.

  261. Regarding talking to an ant or rock, Me: That is consistent with all particles having consciousness, something that explains a lot, but which I would rather not mention in a paper to scientists. Same goes for Zohar cosmology (which she got from Andre Linde) and God consciousness. The scientists are intelligent enough to get the cosmic picture without my saying so.

  262. Regarding "but all of humanity currently has 1/2 spin particles ". Me: This is the most difficult aspect of your model for scientists. I cannot understand how fermions can exist in an axion condensate. So I guess what counts is that they are Cooper-pairs of axions with unlike charges of consciousness. (They cannot be electrical charges or they would be easily detected.) The Cooper-pairs act like bosons and therefore can accumulate at a point.

  263. Now I can see a positive spin one axion combining with a negative spin one axion to form TWO Cooper-pairs, where each element of each pair seems to be a spin 1/2 axion, but the pairs do not have spin 1/2 properties. [The good Doctor may have here theorized an important detail of the 1/2 spin axion particles, but I suspect he is again theorizing from the Corporeal side of the Quantum rather than the Incorporeal side.]

  264. So the combination can yield two types of Cooper-pairs:
    1. Zero charge, zero spin pair as the charges and spins cancel.
    2. Zero charge, spin one Cooper-pair as the spins add up but the charges must always cancel, but perhaps be in a dipole arrangement.
    As such the Cooper-pairs lose much of their consciousness, but coming in two types, they can support binary processes and be a quantum computer.

  265. "Chargeless": That would be why imagination and the usual dreams have so little consciousness; whereas OBE, being a product of unitary-spin axions, has very distinct consciousness. I like that thought. It just came to me.

  266. Is the above correct thinking???

  267. If so, then I would like to mention in the paper that the layer of Cooper-pairs are neutral and have the properties of a binary medium. I conclude that we need detailed QUFD physics. That an OK statement for you?

  268. Here is a copy of the paper with all the above revisions. Please read your section carefully. Thank you in advance.

    Richard

    Feb 2003 17:46 EST
    Richard

  269. I would say you have approached the correct and necessary 'degree' of interpretation for the rest of the scientists at the Conference, achieving the 'walking of a very fine line' between 'believability' and non-believability for persons whose Weltauschung ('realization' or Grand View of Life, if I have my German correct, but maybe I am thinking of another German word that I am not remembering correctly) is not necessarily 'global', to use one of your words. In other words, I understand that you cannot infer and imply, to any great extent, that 'religion' or God/Lucifer, have anything whatsoever ("OH! My Goodness Gracious! What will he come up with next?") to do with physics and science. Thusly, your Paper 'strikes' just about 'right', as far as a 'balance' in what is presented therein, and I again congratulate you.

  270. However, for your own info only, let me distinguish some points.
    1. I mentioned it to you once before, but your 'treading a perilous path between Religion and Science' brings it to mind again. Here is the page from QUFD, quoting M. Scott Peck, M.D.: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/SymVio.html You may find the analogy here interesting.
    2. As to the context of your details regarding Cooper-paired particles, I had to re-read that again before I could agree with the CONTEXT of it only. Again, I certainly understand that you wish to avoid anything that might be taken as a 'religious' implication in describing a BEC condensate coupling to the brain and your statement is correct in that context. Meaning that a BEC condensate does exist between the brain and any and all consciousness beyond the human individual. That BEC condensate QUFD, overall, defines as the 'individual local Mind' of consciousness, and one 'side' of it is the corporeal brain, which 'inputs' to that condensate as well as receives the corporeal/physical 'results/output' from that condensate. Incidentally, the only spin one 'action' of the axion particles/wave collapse here is ONLY at the INTERFACE between the condensate and the brain, in the nuclei of the glia, where the quantum wave collapse is translated into the very corporeal 'switching' of the H2 molecule and the dendrite microwave signal (a corporeal, yet quantum 'field/force'), which in turn 'triggers' back the axion wave collapse in the condensate which is the feedback. So ONLY at this INTERFACE are spin one axion 'actions', the rest of the condensate beyond the INTERFACE being of 1/2 spin particles PRESENTLY. And this word, presently, is 'going where you cannot tread' at this Conference, in that 'presently' refers to the Luciferian Complex of Negative consciousness, which is the reason the axion particles of the condensate are 1/2 spin rather than spin one. Nor can you say, or imply (at least to any great extent), that what lies ON THE OTHER SIDE of the condensate (of the individual local human mind), is a gigantic 'Dark Matter' condensate from which that individual local Mind condensate did so derive, and that Cosmic condensate is known as Spirit or Infinite Consciousness, or God. So your context is correct for the Conference. The only other 'nit-picking', as to details, that I would pass on, is that QUFD does not attribute 'Cooper-pairing' to the individual axion particles of the condensate per se, but instead says that the condensate 'is influenced' AS A WHOLE, to be Cooper-paired! So, further 'breaking' the Mind condensate down, we actually have THREE 'interacting' condensates here. The lower-mind (self) condensate, as a whole, is of positively-charged 1/2 spin axions. The upper-mind (Soul/Self) condensate, as a whole, is of positively-charged 1/2 spin axions. Between both of these positive condensates, we have the 'fingers of Negativity', a condensate originating from the Negative 'dimension' of consciousness (Lucifer), which is of negatively-charged 1/2 spin axion particles. Normally, if these three condensates were NOT 'sandwiched' together and 'influencing' each other, these individual condensates would be spin one particles! But the fact of their Cooper-pairing, as to the WHOLE of each of these condensates, results in such 'influence' CHANGING the axion particles of each condensate from spin one TO spin 1/2, AN ABNORMAL CONDITION, that humanity is presently living under!
    3. The other point that I wish to mention is that these 'analyses', of QUFD and QUFD Principles (which you correctly note are philosophical, NOT mathematical!), in their attempts to explain 'reality' and the 'truths' of Incorporeality, ARE NOT RELIGIOUS at all, and have nothing whatsoever to do with any man-made 'religion'! The OA/OWB, the Ancient Order, and all sources from which I derive the 'substance' of QUFD, both of ancient origin and of modern scientists, ARE SCIENTIFIC sources, NOT of any 'religion'! QUFD is an attempt to bring Science and Spirit (NOT Religion, NOR any 'fantasy spiritUALITY'!) together, because BOTH are based on Cosmic Law, which is as 'true' for scientists as it is for God. When Science can see that the 'mechanisms', 'dynamics' and whatever one may talk about, have a 'connection' to BOTH Science AND God, then we will have finally returned to the 'days of old' when Science and God WERE ONE! THAT is the QUFD 'perspective', NOT religious in any way! Let me quote from Section 302 of the Main QUFD document (Qufd2.html):
    "Life wings its way throughout the Cosmos on the feathers of Consciousness - the quantum axion particles of Spirit - that Cosmic "dark matter" which no one can see but which IS, nevertheless, the very "Essence" of All That Is! Praise God, from Whom all Blessings flow, including that "flow" of Cosmic Consciousness. May we be One with that One which IS, that we might truly say, "I AM THAT I AM!"

    Jerome

    6 Feb 2003 8:44 EST
    Father Jerome,

  271. 1. Not to malign Mr. Peck, whom I greatly respect, but I do believe that it was Descartes who divided science and religion into his duality of materialism and idealism so that one could not possibly study the other.

  272. As I have written you previously, we all are now trying to make science and religion (or spirit) more compatible. That is the hidden purpose of my paper. Unfortunately perhaps it will be done by science making even more inroads on religion.

  273. 2. To quote your email: ". So ONLY at this INTERFACE are spin one axion 'actions', the rest of the condensate beyond the INTERFACE being of 1/2 spin particles PRESENTLY. "
    What bothers me here is that Cooper-pairs CANNOT be spin 1/2. They have to be either spin zero or spin one, or both which allows for quantum computing. The axions would be fermions if they were spin 1/2. In a Cooper-pair, the two particles are so tightly coupled that the spins either are in parallel or anti-parallel. To say that the individual particles of a Cooper-pair can act independently does an injustice to your model. It is an unnecessary statement and certainly not grounded in physics. Perhaps it was revealed to you that they act independently. But I doubt it. God is the best physicist. Besides the individuality of the spin 1/2 axions is lost in a Cooper-pair leading to very weak consciousness as the charges cancel out, or come very close to cancelling if they are in a dipole arrangement.

  274. That explains why our imagination and our (non-lucid) dreams are so fuzzy; whereas the OBE experience is so distinctly conscious. OBEs happen in the spin one condensate, right?

  275. Also the weak consciousness of the Cooper-pair layer naturally prevents us from accessing the spin one condensate. You see the more I work through your model and note its consistency with the other two models in my paper, the more I believe in your model. But often your interpretation of it is not exactly mine.

  276. BTW- I do mention Lucifer and Jung and even good and evil as well as good and bad. That should be fodder for the scientists. They can guess as to what the cosmic condensate is.

  277. Oops! Here is a quote I find disturbing: "So, further 'breaking' the Mind condensate down, we actually have THREE 'interacting' condensates here. The lower-mind (self) condensate, as a whole, is of positively-charged 1/2 spin axions. The upper-mind (Soul/Self) condensate, as a whole, is of positively-charged 1/2 spin axions. Between both of these positive condensates, we have the 'fingers of Negativity', a condensate originating from the Negative 'dimension' of consciousness (Lucifer), which is of negatively-charged 1/2 spin axion particles. "

  278. I am afraid I cannot accept your interpretation. Please tell me if it was directly revealed. It is not clear that spin 1/2 particles can form condensates. Electrons can, but only as Cooper-pairs.

  279. If the spin 1/2 particles were in separate positively charged and negatively charged layers, the consciousness should be very strong. [Which is as it is!]

  280. Also charge cannot accumulate with spin 1/2 particles just because they are fermions due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Therefore the density of spin 1/2 condensates must be uniform and very small even if they do exist.

  281. I do not think you want that in your model. The small density would mean that the consciousness of those separate layers would be weak. But without density variations, the layers would be rather useless.

  282. So I think you have to buy the fact that the Cooper-pairs are indeed dipole-like composite particles of spin one or zero. That makes them bosons and capable of density variations. If you disagree, then we have to agree to disagree. But I do think you are then doing a disservice to your model.

  283. The influence of Lucifer is still there. The higher mind could be the quantum wave functions of the Cooper-pair condensate; whereas the lower mind would be the collapsed wave functions which are visible particles. The upper mind is invisible and a quantum computer; whereas the lower mind is a classical computer, and therefore rather 'corporeal'. [Here the good Doctor is 'getting close' again!]

  284. 3. I appreciate your preference for science and spirit rather than science and religion. I have used the word religion only once in the expression "a comprehensive and self-consistent model of physics, neurophysics, psychology, sociology and religion. I could replace the word religion by the word god. Nowhere else do I imply that your model is of or based on religion, just that much of it comes from 'direct revelation'.

  285. Otherwise the most negative aspect of my review of your model is the way that you do not provide references for QUFD to papers by Einstein or Bose. Is this correct? Have I missed the reference list somewhere?

  286. I really believe in your model whereas on first reading it seemed contrary to science. The spin 1/2 axions acting independently still seems contrary to science. So I have addressed the Cooper-pair layer as a nearly chargeless dipole layer in the Discussion, and just passed over it in the section that reviews your model. Otherwise the scientists will reject it out-of-hand, and I do not want that to happen.

  287. But I do wish and pray that you would reconsider the aspect of your model that claims spin 1/2 axions acting independently.

    Yours,
    Richard

    Feb 2003 2:56 EST
    Richard (you may need to print this out as it has turned out to be lengthy)

  288. I have some further comments on your most recent post that I think you will agree with even though our individual backgrounds and training differ significantly. But first I want to note one other minor incorrection which, however, I am NOT asking you to change, since you have already made significant changes in your Paper to accomodate QUFD and I do not wish to impose upon your own personal 'feeling' of integrity and of what 'is right' as to the details of your Paper. I am only mentioning it for your own edification and also because you indirectly bring up the subject when you 'see' particular aspects of QUFD differently than I do. And this, purely and simply, boils down to the differences in our backgrounds and training.

  289. Thusly I am herewith, first thing, going to try to clarify those differences, so that we can 'agree to disagree' respectfully, because I can certainly accept and respect your perspective and even what you might 'see' in the QUFD Model FROM your perspective (or, if so, from your own personal and direct revelation, as the Guy Upstairs shall have shown such directly to you, in your own personal 'interpretation' of QUFD).

  290. You have previously said you could not understand why I was not aware of certain simple basics of corporeal physics and I, in turn, keep trying to understand why you cannot 'see' the 'simplicity' and 'reality' of the QUFD Model FROM THE INCORPOREAL perspective, instead of the corporeal Quantum 'Mechanical' perspective. In this I agree, because, as I have noted several times, I am NOT 'grounded' in 'corporeality' in any way! (Actually, as my Vitae and other pages on the QUFD website do indicate, I WAS quite well 'grounded' in corporeality ONCE UPON A TIME, but I will let you know, pure and simple, what happened - I BURNED OUT, not only once but several times!) Anyway for such reasons, when it comes to anything in corporeality, such as beyond the synapse into specific brain functions ... Hey, I'll let that up to scientists who are experts in such, as I am NOT! But on the other hand, what I 'see' as just so 'simple' about QUFD from the 'incorporeal' perspective, is just what folks from the 'corporeal' side keep 'misunderstanding' or just plain 'seeing' differently than I am 'seeing' such. So, again, I can agree that scientists who are 'grounded' in corporeal Quantum Mechanics are just not seeing the Quantum Physics of QUFD as I am seeing it and as I have put it forth! (And the 'principles' and 'details', of QUFD, that I have quoted to you, have existed as an integral part of QUFD going back almost 10 years, myself not knowing specifically how long any particular detail or 'dynamic' or postulate may have itself existed.) And as to the source of any particular 'point' of QUFD, I have said, in the first several NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS of the QUFD 'Formulation' (Qufd2.html), that such 'sources' are BOTH 'corporeal' (including physicists of recent centuries of human history) AND 'incorporeal' (as found in Carl Jung's Collective Consciousness of humanity, which is called the 'Hall of Records' or the 'Akashic Records', which is accessible via one's Soul, and which I did access personally during the 5 year 'sojourn' that I spent with the OA/OWB, such experience which you might call 'direct revelation'), as I was so 'trained' and did so 'find', in my research, FROM the incorporeal side of reality!

  291. So, to get down to the basics, it is a 'question' of my 'qualifications' and I can provide no more details of those 'qualifications' than do already exist on the QUFD website, some of such pages I will list hereinthefollowing, if you may not have already come across these pages.

  292. Incidentally, you have already 'corrected' one of my degrees, but the other one was also not correct, and it is the 'item' that I am NOT asking you to change unless you may wish to for correctness alone. I do NOT have a 'PhD' in Theology, which would, in the secular, corporeal world imply Theology of a specific man-made 'religion', but instead, since both of my degrees are from the OA/OWB (the Ancient Order's dimension of Reality), which is of God and Spirit, but NOT 'religious' IN ANY WAY, being, instead, an Ancient Order of the SPIRIT of Christ which is purely SCIENTIFIC, encompassing Science and God AS ONE, from ages and aeons past up to today! Accordingly, my second degree is a D.Th.(In Esse, the Theology of Reality). These degrees are further explained in the following pages: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/oaowbnotes.html (excerpted from my ebook, "KNOWING:...")
    Next, on the Qufd2.html Main Document page (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qufd2.html), just down from the top, under the magenta-violet-text section entitled, "A Serious Reader's recommended READING GUIDE to the content of this website!", you will find the following quote in red-text: "NOTE: Although this document and website use Quantum Physics to explain the workings of Consciousness, the Christian SPIRITUAL Theology of Reality is also used to explain the realities of Consciousness. In this case, scientific Spirituality is distinguished from "Religion", in that this website has NO religious affiliation NOR does it promote ANY religious viewpoint or doctrine, and neither does it espouse nor condone any of the so-called "New-Age" money-scam frauds or psychic-fantasy nonsense. "Just the facts, Ma'am! Just the facts!", as Sergeant Friday used to say. Pure, unadulterated scientific and historical fact. That's all, folks!"
    And then, immediately following the previous quote, if you click on the FIWD Institute link, it does further note the purely Christian (Spirit, NOT 'Religion'!) and Scientific nature of QUFD. Further down the page (Qufd2.html), Vitae.html and Author.html (links) give further info on my qualifications, as does the Apologia.html (link) and the "Philosophy of QUFD" section that is found just before the actual QUFD Formulation and its NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS start. Several other QUFD pages also note my qualifications in Physics from a Spiritual (Incorporeal) Reality-based perspective, NOT 'religious'!

  293. So the sum of it all is that I view QUFD from the Incorporeal side of Reality and thusly that is how I have described it. That you view it from the Corporeal side and thusly 'interpret' it according to your understanding, I can accept and respect. The only thing that I can hope for, is that somehow, Quantum Mechanics and the Physics of Quantum Incorporeality might someday find each other in agreement somehow, because, from my perspective, Science and God's Law of One (Wholeness, Unity) are one and the same thing, therefore not only the CONTEXT but also the CONTENT should somehow find agreement. THEN, with such a Universal 'understanding' (as to the basics, the fundamentals, SCIENTIFICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, as to 'what makes humanity tick'), humanity should be on its way to resolving all our other 'differences', animosities, wars and so forth! That is what I hope for!

  294. HOWEVER, FIRST an important 'qualification'! Regardless of the use of any term or terminology within the pages of QUFD, when referring to the Incorporeal or Incorporeality, with respect to ANY condensate of Incorporeality, it is to be understood AS A BASIC FACT AND REALITY, that there are certain aspects and terms or definitions, of Classical Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, THAT I DO TOTALLY REFUTE, and which DO NOT EXIST AT ALL within ANY condensate of Incorporeality (except under conditions of advanced 'dynamics'!) SUCH things that DO NOT EXIST within Incorporeality, are: Mathematics, or ANY mathematical 'theorem'; Charge, or any such term related to electric or magnetic fields or forces, which are Corporeal, NOT Incorporeal; ANY of the Corporeal quantum particles, i.e., leptons, bosons, fermions, electrons, quarks, etc., etc.; the quantum axion particle (and waves thereof!) DOES NOT EXIST within Corporeality, but ONLY within Incorporeality, from which it DOES CREATE Corporeality and spacetime and the quantum forces and fields thereof; there is NO 'entanglement', in the sense of quantum mechanics; there are NO 'dimensions', in the sense of Classical Physics, but there ARE dimensions in the definition of QUFD Physics! Further specifics regarding any term can be found in QUFD and in the use thereof!

  295. Okay, Richard, to your recent post!
  296. Yes, you are correct, in that the Cartesian 'dichotomy' did definitely have an influence upon everything since, but as QUFD would say, there is a scientific explanation for that Cartesian 'influence' as well as all of the other NEGATIVE 'influences' upon mankind since the beginnings of this civilization (about 9644 B.C.), and that 'influence' IS, plain and simple, Lucifer and the Negative 'dimension' of Consciousness, which is (since 9644 B.C.!), scientifically, the 'incursion' of that Negative axion condensate, those 'fingers of Negativity', that currently exist between the self condensate (lower mind) and the Soul condensate (upper Mind), WHICH IS AN ABNORMAL CONDITION!

  297. Normally, we would ONLY have a two-condensate 'pairing', of upper and lower mind, working together IN HARMONY and WHOLENESS, and it would be, as you have just said in your post, "...were in separate positively charged and negatively charged layers, the consciousness should be very strong." Okay, you were talking about 1/2 spin particles, which I cannot see the physics thereof, but I can certainly agree, that from a SPIRITUAL perspective, when we have a NORMAL and MATURE human Mind, consisting of an upper condensate of SPIN ONE Positive axion particles (the Soul), working together with a lower condensate of SPIN ONE Positive axion particles (the self), ALL IS WELL AND GOOD, and we have a NORMAL, MATURE Mind, with both self and Soul 'recognizing' each other and working in HARMONY, and in 'strong consciousness', as you have said! (In fact, QUFD states that IF such a NORMAL condition should exist, or RE-APPEAR, by and through the 'actions' and Willpower of all of humanity - through COOPERATION, Love and more - THAT such a condition of MATURITY of Mind would certainly BLOCK Negative Consciousness, i.e. Negative axion particles, from intruding OR 'influencing' the normal functioning of the human Mind, DUE TO the 'strength' OF such Positive-Positive Consciousness! In other words, once humanity has been able to drive Lucifer out, the very genes of mankind itself will act to prevent Lucifer from returning! Such is a function of those specific genes which 'create' the incorporeal human Mind.)

  298. BUT, as I have said, such is NOT the present condition! The present condition IS ABNORMAL (and it has been since 9644 B.C.)! There is a Negatively-constituted condensate existing between upper and lower Mind, which 'influences' ALL actions and 'dynamics' of each and every individual human being, and such 'influences' are thusly felt in the corporeal 'existence' and 'realities' of not only that individual but of human Society as a whole!

  299. Scientifically (as I 'see' it, from the Spirit side of Incorporeality), what has happened is that BOTH kinds of condensates, the Positive condensates AND the Negative condensate, HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY EACH OTHER in this triple-condensate 'layering', which I call Cooper-pairing - i.e., Pos-Neg-Pos - of these 3 condensates. And the 'influence' is that EACH CONDENSATE-layer has had its normal SPIN ONE particles CHANGED TO 1/2 SPIN particles (BECAUSE of the 'influence' OF the oppositely-constituted condensate-layer)! So we now have 1/2 spin Positive - 1/2 spin Negative - 1/2 spin Positive, 3 layers, AN ABNORMAL CONDITION, but a 'condition' that Negative consciousness, Lucifer, is willing to endure in order to be able to Negatively influence ALL human activities!

  300. This present 'condition' has been verified by numerous and respectable researchers throughout the ages. Carl Jung calls it (the 'intruding' Negative layer of consciousness) the 'Veil of Unknowing' or 'Veil of Separation' (between self and Soul), causing the self ('me') TO NOT KNOW one's Soul (the 'unknowing'). Jung's 'solution' to the problem, from Jungian Psychology, is to 'breach' that Veil of Unknowing BY KNOWING ONESELF! Only by KNOWING Who and What a person 'IS', what one was 'Born to Be', by 'living IN THE MOMENT', as QUFD calls it, can one get back in touch with one's Soul AND the Positive Consciousness of Infinite Consciousness (God). Until that happens, when ANY human being need only, mentally and CONSCIOUSLY (in lucid, conscientious, mental endeavor and function), use one's Mind to phase-space-shift one's Reality of Consciousness, FROM this corporeal 'dimension' TO ANY OTHER 'dimension' of Reality, AT WILL ...... until that happens (Maturity and Wholeness of Mind is re-established), humanity ONLY HAS the self, 'me', and does NOT 'know' their Soul except fleetingly and randomly in 'Dreamland', and we are thusly 'influenced' by Lucifer. Meister Eckhardt, Saint John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and many other spiritual and psychological 'researchers' have, over the ages, 'verified' this 'Veil of Separation', which QUFD has defined and detailed scientifically, AS I HAVE BEEN SHOWN such, from the 'scientific' perspective of Incorporeality or Spirit, which MAY NOT necessarily agree with corporeal Quantum Mechanics!

  301. Okay, let me try to further address your 'differentiations' between 1/2 spin particles and spin one particles. Again, myself not being 'grounded' in your Quantum Mechanics, I can only relate how I 'see' it from Spirit! Perhaps you are right, as to your 'interpretations' of the charges and spins of the particles, but the 'message' that I have gotten and which I have put forth in QUFD, IS THAT THERE IS a basic and fundamental difference between axion particles operating in relation to each other AS INDEPENDENT forces/fields or 'entities' - in other words, in CORPOREALITY, versus axion particles operating in the UNITARY force/field condensate of Incorporeality, AS NON-INDEPENDENT 'entities', but entities which are 'influenced' and manipulated BY THE WHOLE OF THE CONDENSATE, or at least by the 'ground-state' of the condensate, and then further 'influenced', DYNAMICALLY, by the 'inputs' to the condensate and the resulting 'actions' that take place as a result of those 'inputs', ON TOP OF THE NOMINALLY coherent 'ground-state' OF that condensate. This is, as I have stated in QUFD, the difference between axions operating in 'differentiated relativity' (corporeality) and axions operating in 'undifferentiated relativity' (incorporeality). In a unified field BEC condensate of undifferentiated relativity, there MAY BE a significant difference in the quantum 'actions' that take place, versus those that take place in differentiated relativity! As to the details of why, from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics, I cannot say! I only have this feeling to go by, which says that the 'name of the game' is different somehow out there! So as you say yourself, in relation to particles acting independently versus in unison ...... "God is the best physicist!"

  302. Now, to clarify that last statement even further, I do NOT wish to imply that I am God or that I am 'acting' FOR God, in what I have put forth in QUFD. All I am saying is that THAT is the way and the details THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO ME, both through what you might call 'direct revelation' AND what has been shown to me of the works of OTHER scientists, AS their works did so, seemingly, relate to the rest of the research material that I was 'shown'. In other words, AS ANY SUCH research material, context and content, did so FIT THE "BIG PICTURE" that I was being shown, rather than the individual 'mechanics' of any specific scientific discipline. It is for that very reason that I can say that I think I have, in all honesty, purposely 'ignored' such 'specifics' (the 'grounding' that you and I both agree is missing), IN PURSUIT OF the 'Big Picture', rather than any individual tree or even forest. I hope this makes some kind of sense to you, Richard, as it is the best I can do to explain Who and What I AM and What I have 'created'.

  303. Okay, finally, your comment about 'references' being missing in QUFD. I have said that some content has come from popular-science publications (Physical Review, specific-discipline 'Journals', etc.) but it also has come from the Collective and beyond, as mentioned earlier. In this, I have been as honest as I can, as to 'attribution', as I have not been concerned with the individual 'facts' and Truths EXCEPT as to HOW they fit into the 'Big Picture'! THAT is what I have 'drawn', 'created' and detailed ... the 'Big Picture', AS I SEE IT!
    If you want to say that QUFD is an individual 'interpretation' of Reality somehow, using scientific principles, facts and realities, in definition OF a 'BIG Picture' perspective of Life and Existence, I would certainly agree with that! (Now, I have NOT, Richard, told you to do such! WHAT you do, and what you say, HAS TO FIND 'integrity' within yourself! I can only trust that you ARE the 'person of integrity' that you have so far shown yourself to be. In this, I can say that I believe the Guy Upstairs is certainly with you!)

  304. Hoping you have understood these comments and will, of your own actions, produce a Paper that will be not only acceptable to the scientific Community but also necessarily 'revolutionary', AS MADE SO BY YOUR ACTIONS!

    Best Wishes,
    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    7 Feb 2003 8:11 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  305. I can see that we have a fundamental philosophic difference. I am a materialist. I think dark matter is a medium of materials. It contains a BEC. But that BEC is subject to the same forces that say a superconductor or superfluid is [what it is], except it has a new (to us) kind of charge.

  306. So the spin one axions behave like a superfluid and the spin 1/2 particles behave like a superconductor. Superconductors require ACTUAL Cooper-pairs to be superconducting. Not layers of different spin 1/2 particles. That cannot exist in a superconductor.

  307. You seem to think that incorporeality is something entirely different from what quantum mechanics can describe, like Descarte's idealism.

  308. I prefer to think of incorporeality as just a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and subject to the usual material forces that are known to govern BECs. So any 1/2 spin particles, like the electrons in a superconductor have to exist in Cooper-pairs, or the medium is not a BEC.

  309. Now perhaps you can have two Cooper-pair layers, one for the lower mind and one for the upper mind. How about that???

  310. That would be acceptable quantum physics. But you cannot have as you say in the following:
    "this triple-condensate 'layering', which I call Cooper-pairing - i.e., Pos-Neg-Pos - of these 3 condensates"

  311. So with all respect we have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we just disagree on the details of the physics. The overall picture does not change.

  312. Let me try one more time. When Lucifer injected negative particles, they were spin one particles, right? That's all he has to begin with. Then the human mind with positive spin one particles surrounded the negative spin one particles from each side, so to speak, and broke them in half, with a Cooper-pair on both sides, resulting in two layers of Cooper-pairs. That idea just came to me. You know from whence. It is now what I believe to be true.

  313. I am also 'burned out'. But we both have our integrity.

  314. I already changed the PhD to a D.Th.

  315. Glad my reference to your lack of references stood up. Well no. I would have preferred to say your article was well referenced.

  316. Finally, I have no problem tweaking the paper to fit your thinking as long as it does not offend my integrity. I cannot say anything that I believe is not true. So as well I want 'what I say about your model' to be true to you, except for that area where we agree to disagree. I have removed it to the discussion, so that it is not directly attributed to you.

  317. I am glad that you are not bothered by my use of a charge of consciousness. That is the one way that the Dark Matter BEC is different from ordinary BECs. But the physics has to be the same except that like consciusness charges attract and unlike repel. At one point below you seem to agree with this.

  318. Please let me know if anything else bothers you. We have a month to get to a final draft.

  319. I also sent the paper to Paavo Pylkkanen of Finland who is expert on Bohm Theory and presenting a Bohm Theory model of consciousness at the conference.

  320. Thanks for all your help and time. Hopefully it will pay off for both of us in some way.

    Yours,
    Richard

    7 Feb 2003 14:02 EST
    Richard

  321. Yes, Yes, I can agree with the following:
    "Let me try one more time. When Lucifer injected negative particles, they were spin one particles, right? That's all he has to begin with. Then the human mind with positive spin one particles surrounded the negative spin one particles from each side, so to speak, and broke them in half, with a Cooper-pair on both sides, resulting in two layers of Cooper-pairs. That idea just came to me. You know from whence. It is now what I believe to be true."

  322. I can agree with that, as to a Cooper-pairing from both sides of the Negatively-charged layer. And you are right, that all was in Spin One bliss before the Cooper-pairing occurred, even as to Negativity itself being of Spin One normally throughout the Cosmos (actually, only in the 'Nether Regions', i.e., Hades, which is nominally considered the 'abode' of Lucifer although I call ANY Negative 'influence' THROUGHOUT the Cosmos an 'influence' from the 'Luciferian Complex of Negative Consciousness'. QUFD also states that the Luciferian Complex of Negative Consciousness actually 'surrounds' our world, leading to the well-known expression that Lucifer is 'Prince of our world'. In fact, with regard to your comments on NDE and OBE, perhaps you might find interesting my 'definition' of 'dimensionality', in Father Jerome's DICTIONARY on the QUFD website, if you haven't yet seen it. The URL is http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Key00203.html. Basically, it defines dimensionality with respect to a Soul 'traveling' that 'tunnel of Light' toward Positivity and experiencing the 'Valley of the Shadow of Death' as the darkness of the Negativity which surrounds that 'tunnel' which the Soul is traveling. You might find this 'definition' interesting).

  323. But somehow, I yet feel that after the 'insertion' of that negative layer in the middle of the 'sandwich', somehow the spin of each layer must have been affected and was changed to 1/2 spin because of the opposite polarity 'influence' on each layer. But, as you have said, we can agree to disagree as to the details. What is important to me is as how I can see the Big Picture and its effects upon humanity and Reality throughout the Cosmos. What is important to you are the details, the individual 'trees', in the QUFD 'forest'. I have no problem with that, and I can even see agreement on some of these details, such as with your statement quoted above.

  324. VERY very Best Wishes, Richard, on the Paper. My only wish might be that since you are the 'expert' on what you have 'created', that you might be able to actually attend the Conference, to confidently and accurately 'defend' that which you have 'created' FROM your own sense of 'knowing' AS TO those 'details' you have put forth in your Paper. If it were me, I think that is what I would try to do, to the best of my ability to do so. In the same way, with the experience between you and I, as well as otherwise, I have had to 'defend' the Truth AS I SAW IT (as to QUFD), and I only wish you could do so too, in defense of that which is yours!

  325. But your 'situation' is only as you know it to be, and if you are unable to make it, I will certainly respect your decision. Again, the very Best of Wishes to you.

    Jerome

    7 Feb 2003 19:12 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,,

  326. Many thanks. The paper appears to be in a form that you can live with and that I can live with. Life is Beautiful!

  327. As far as attending the conference, I would like that just to learn more about what is going on in the field and perhaps clear up misconceptions on my part. But being retired, I cannot do it this time. Perhaps if the paper is received well I will get money to attend some conference in the future. There does seem to be money out there to promote what you and (now I think I can say) I have been modeling.

  328. Besides not being there has a certain mystic to it. People always think more highly of the unknown than the known.

  329. BTW- It occurs to me that the accumulations of positive and negative charge in different regions of the universe may eventually explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe from the repulsion of unlike charges. That is normally attributed to Dark Energy. But the scientists just invented Dark Energy as a term for something they did not really understand. Same thing regarding entanglement.

  330. Anyway there may not be anything besides the particles of dark matter except that these particles have a net repulsion acting in the universe. I would be interested in how your intuition reacts to that thought.

  331. To quote: "a Soul 'traveling' that 'tunnel of Light' toward Positivity ". I think that agrees with the recipe in the Tibetan Book of the Dead for attaining salvation even if you are not a very spiritual person. I'm counting on it.

  332. While writing this paper I noticed that my intuition was getting more sensitive. I began to anticipate phone calls and the like. So I guess this has been a spiritual experience for me.

  333. I also have noticed something else earlier in my life when I was meditating much more strenuously than now. Lights seem to turn off when I get within about 100 feet of them. I always thought that that occurred because I was attracting positive charge to me and creating a layer of negative charge some distance away, and that the negative charge influenced the flow of electrons. The charge seemed therefore to be negative.

  334. I once ran into a Russian in the States, he was in the USSR Dolphin project and claimed to talk to Dolphins, and he told me that he once turned off a traffic light and the engineers could not turn it back on.

  335. So I guessed that the negative charge, whatever it was, influenced electrons. And it follows that the positive charge influences protons. But protons are so much heavier and tightly bound than electrons, that accumulations of positive charge in your body did not affect your health.

  336. However, accumulations of negative charge in your body would be unhealthy and lead to an early demise as we seem to see in this world. The most honest people are the healthiest.

  337. For this to be true, there must a mixture of positive and negative axions all around us. It that possible?

  338. Well enough for now. Now that we are more or less seeing eye to eye, forgive me if I exploit you with lots of questions.

    Yours,
    Richard

    8 Feb 2003 13:21 EST
    Richard

  339. And I'll give a Hearty Heigh-O too, for in many ways Life IS good, if one can but 'Be In The Moment' (with the Positivity of Infinite Consciousness) to see that which is Beautiful and to appreciate it. But also, at the same time, in order to truly appreciate that which is Good, one MUST also understand and recognize that there is also Evil in this world and in the Cosmos. THAT is what enables the 'seeing' of Goodness while at the same time energizing that 'Knowing' person to TAKE ACTION and to do something about the situation!

  340. In QUFD, at several places, I mention that once an individual understands such things from a truly scientific AND Spiritual basis (NOT 'New Age' fantasy-'spiritual', ala Madam Blatvotsky, or whatever her name was, or anything like that) and thusly can really see Reality for oneself, AND KNOW Who and What one 'Is', and What One Was 'Born to Be and to Do' ...... THEN (NO! I'm not going to say, "WE'RE going to DISNEYLAND!"), since once you know Who and What you ARE, and are thusly truly FREE to DO what you were 'Born To Do' (you're no longer locked in a 'cage', of your own and Lucifer's 'making'), THE ONLY THING left for you to do, IS TO CHANGE THE WORLD for the Better!!! Of course, several places in QUFD, I 'quote' Lucifer (per 'philosophia perennis', quoting imaginary 'conversations' in Hades), where he says that he does NOT, in any way, want humans to KNOW Who and What they ARE, because they would thusly then be getting in contact with their Souls and with God, so he just can't have such a thing going on. So, via his 'fingers of Negativity' (the Negative layer of consciousness in each and every human Mind), he 'programs' (subverts the normal actions/dynamics between self and Soul, by his additional phase-space-shifting of those dynamics) any and all human beings who are NOT 'living' in Positivity ('In the Moment'!), to 'think' that they CANNOT CHANGE THE WORLD, but ONLY themselves! (When the reality is that, IF you can actually 'change' yourself, well then, that means that you really don't KNOW Who and What you are, and you are NOT 'living' in the Positivity of God!) And so we have that famous expression, beloved of any and everybody who has a 'psychological' reason (probably money!) and (vested) 'interest', in having people believe that, "You can't Change the World, only yourself!" WHICH IS JUST AS LUCIFER WOULD HAVE IT! He don't want people 'changing the world' (except as HE says to!) for the better OR 'knowing' God, by 'knowing' themselves! And so we have his nefarious 'influences' upon us, via those 'fingers of Negativity' sandwiched between self and Soul, which Carl Jung calls the 'Veil of Unknowing' or the 'Veil of Separation' (between self and Soul)!

  341. Hey Richard, to change the subject, I used to 'meditate' regularly but I no longer do, letting the Guy Upstairs contact me as and when He wishes to and I do the same. But I remember one time someone telling me about a quite unique 'form' of meditation that I'll pass on to you. All it requires is for you to stand up, and walk across the room to the doorway, but the 'trick' is to take 8 HOURS TO DO IT!

  342. Getting back to your post, let's see, there was something else I was going to comment on. Let me re-read it.

    Okay, first, your comment about Positive and Negative charges in the Universe. In the pages of QUFD I state the following, which I am going to merely paraphrase here, without looking it up: That once upon a time, all was BLISS, in the Cosmos, with Positivity (God) and Negativity (His ArchAngel), living in Harmony and Oneness, under God's Law of One (Unity of Everything), which was also known as Yin-Yang. But then something happened, and God had to expel His ArchAngel Lucifer FROM that blissful Oneness and DUALITY in the Cosmos was created, with Negativity from the dimensions of the Nether Regions opposing, in conflict with, and competing with, the Positivity of Infinite Consciousness, throughout the Cosmos. And thusly Lucifer, to this day, promotes competition, animosity, wars and on and on, THROUGHOUT THE COSMOS and within humanity, RATHER THAN COOPERATION, Love and Harmony. And thusly the Cosmic 'jig-saw-puzzle' (actually, humanity) (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Evolut2.html#jig-saw) cannot be completed, finished and whole. BUT, He/She (God) has 'designed' a purpose into it all, and thusly has a solution for the DUALITY throughout the Cosmos. And He has made it the DESTINY OF MANKIND! It is a CHALLENGE! And what is that Destiny? It is for mankind, God's 'children', to 'get their Act Together', to eliminate divisiveness, competition and such 'Dualities' within themselves (through Love, Cooperation and more), to 'Bring Together' ALL of humanity in ONENESS, AND THEN TO DO THE SAME THING IN THE COSMOS! In other words, GOD NEEDS HELP, and He has 'charged' His children, humanity, with the mission of RE-UNITING God AND Lucifer, in ONENESS and Harmony (Yin-Yang) and eliminating DUALITY, of opposing Positivity and Negativity! Hey, this reminds me of a page in QUFD that you might find interesting. I think it is in my SERMONS section. Let me look it up a second. Stand-by.
    Found it. Here it is: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/sermon13.html

  343. Let's see, there was something else. Well, I can't find anything but the following:
    "For this to be true, there must a a mixture of positive and negative axions all around us. Is that possible?"

  344. Well, Richard, disregarding the Negativity of Lucifer's 'influences' throughout human society, I remember something that I think I read one time by that great Theoretical Physicist Dr. Richard Yannipoulos-Ruquist (and pardon my lack of a complete 'reference' here, as it just came to Mind from the Collective and I don't have a 'specific reference' or bibliography of where it came from, except from the Collective Consciousness of humanity!) I think he said something like, "All axion particles exist throughout the Cosmos, in both Corporeality and Incorporeality, with the Incorporeal axions and their Incorporeal 'dynamics', affecting the Reality of the Corporeal axions, in that they are invisibly 'bound' (in some way) with those Corporeal axions which, in Reality, 'create' our Material/Physical world (or QUFD 'dimension'), which couldn't exist WITHOUT the underlying 'dynamics' OF those invisible 'partners' of these quantum axion particles."

  345. At least that is what came to me! Maybe I got it wrong! Maybe my 'connection' to the 'Collective' was a bit 'fuzzy', as to the exact details, but I am quite sure that the Guy Upstairs, who just 'delivered' this to me, AT LEAST HAD THE CONTEXT RIGHT, and thusly I'll TRUST that, in the CONTEXT of the 'Big Picture', it was right! I'll leave the details to the experts, to work out what is right and what is not right, and maybe they'll come to some 'agreement' that yet fits the 'Big Picture' that the Guy Upstairs has shown me, which I Trust is right!

  346. Okay, Richard, I just remembered one thing more! I wanted to advise you that I have done as many other scientists and professional researchers have done on the Internet, which is to publish edited copies of their professional research discussions and email conversations on the Internet for other scientists and the public's benefit. In other words, since our email 'conversations' have been with regard to professional concerns and are thusly in the public interest, just as your Paper and it's references to my Works, QUFD, are in the public interest, I have likewise published an edited version of our 'conversations' on the QUFD website (leaving out, of course, any and all of any personal info that you may have passed along). I have added editorial 'comments' of my own, in 'clarification' of selected 'comments' of my own and yours, that I felt needed 'clarification'. In doing this, of course, I in no way have, nor have intended to, defame, malign, libel or impugn yourself or your thoughts or research. In fact, just as you have done for me, in publishing our research 'collaborations', hopefully any and all such 'publicity' should bear the fruit of recognition by the public and other scientists of our Works and thusly be of benefit to all. I had wanted to mention this to you earlier but I am now just getting to it. I just posted it the other day, and I will certainly revise and correct any specific item that you might feel is incorrect. It can be found on the Opening Page in the SHORTCUT MENU in the QUALIA Series listing under "QUALIA 11: Conversations between Physicists, In Exploration and Definition of QUFD".

    Best Regards,
    Jerome

    8 Feb 2003 13:41 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  347. What lengthy replies. No wonder you publish them on your site. I have no problem with your publishing our Emails on your site. In fact, after the conference, perhaps you would like to post my paper there. I think there is a restriction about papers at this conference if they are already published elsewhere. But after March 15th- no problem.

  348. Actually though I was hoping you would comment on Dark Energy and the accelerating universe.

    Yours,
    Richard

    8 Feb 2003 14:09 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  349. I just read your sermon, about Dyson mainly, on: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/sermon13.html

  350. First of all, Dyson was not the first to predict the downfall of the USSR. I heard it first from a student of Kissinger when I was at Harvard in 1960. Then I heard it again in 1975 from the head of lasers in DARPA who said that Star Wars was programmed to drive the USSR into bankruptcy. Then after the USSR capitulated and brought down the Wall, I heard it from the foreign minister of the former USSR that the two things that brought down the wall were Chernobyl and Star Wars.

  351. So not only did I hear it before Dyson said it, I actually contributed to it as much as any one else, save perhaps Raygun (Reagan).

  352. I do not buy Dyson's predictions for 2010. I think it is more likely that Bush's prediction that the world will begin to run out of oil in 2020 is closer to the truth. That is why Iraq is so important.

  353. Do you dabble in political discussions?

    Yours,
    Richard

    9 Feb 2003 9:33 EST
    Richard

  354. Hey, another good idea! To publish your Paper on the QUFD website. Of course, I would add any credits or further comments/clarifications that you may wish, as to your experience with the Paper at the Conference and any feedback from those there. But I'll let that up to you.

  355. Incidentally, I may have something wrong regarding the conference. I originally thought you said it was in Phoenix but I guess it is in Tucson, Arizona. Where I may have it wrong has nothing to do with you except that I mentioned that a colleague (correctly, I don't think I said 'colleague' but instead just said a 'researcher' or other physicist) would present a Paper mentioning QUFD at the Conference. This is in a 'Perspectives' column article that will appear some time soon in local Bay Area newspapers (possibly including the San Francisco Chronicle), which I emailed to my local paper in response to a Book Review in the paper of Science Writer John Horgan's new book entitled, "Science and Mysticism", in which he, according to the Book Review, says something to the effect that when Science gets to the edge of it's understandings of Physics, it then goes into 'mysticism', metaphysics, 'psychics' and 'New Age' stuff! I didn't read the book, but from the review, if that is what he said, I was outraged! My response was an article telling readers to forget about 'mysticism' and all that garbage and to just get down-to-earth REALITY and scientific fundamentalism AND TO READ QUFD for a truly scientific perspective! I think my local paper has a backlog of 'Perspectives' pieces (the column only runs once a week) but I am confident that it will be published. (I can forward a copy to you if you are interested. Let me know.)

  356. As to Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe, Sorry, haven't kept up with such. I've heard of the acceleration theories and the collapse theories and I think the last I saw was some other new theory that was neither acceleration nor collapse.

    Jerome

    9 Feb 2003 10:34 EST
    Richard

  357. No, sorry, I try to ignore politics to the best I can. It is too infused with Lucifer's Negativity, corruption, lies and so forth. I have, to a certain extent, 'ventured into' politics on the QUFD website, on several pages where I, in what would probably be called a 'radical' viewpoint, espoused the thoughts that "People Count", in some way, to the benefit of all of humanity, and I've mentioned numerous ways in which politics and governments over the ages, have conveniently ignored the common man in favor of the rich and privileged, and thusly you might say that I have 'railed' against such situations, and used Science, History, Psychology, Sociology and more to try to enable readers to understand the underlying basics and truths of what is really 'going on' with the rich, politics and government, that somehow readers might 'take action' to make the world and human society more egalitarian and humanitarian.

  358. Are you a member of, I think I saw somewhere, that there was a Harvard group that was politically radical, but I don't know anything about it and I don't join or support anarchic or radical 'causes' (NOR Right OR Left-wing groups)?

  359. As to Dyson, I didn't know about his thoughts on the USSR. What I was interested in and what I referred to in the QUFD 'Sermon', was that he considered our present civilization to be a Zero 'level' civilization, with (according to him) human civilizations ranging up to a civilization that encompasses the entire Cosmos, where a neighbor galaxy would be the equivalent of the neighbor's house next door! I remember that an old Star Trek series had the Enterprise starship and Capt. Picard coming upon a 'Dyson's Sphere' in space, a civilization which had built a totally black and (Damn, been gone from Systems Engineering too long! What the h--- is the word for a source of radiation that is absolute minimum against the cosmic background, known as a 'black-???', and I'm not thinking of a black-hole, but instead the 'black-???' used in mathematical constants for calculating electronic and astrophysical formulas??? Maybe a 'black-radiator'!) non-visible 'shell' around their Sun and lived on the inner surface of that shell, except in the Star Trek segment, the people were no longer there because the Sun had gone 'nova' and they had to leave!

  360. Why it interested me (Dyson and his theory) is that it corresponds with several pages in QUFD where I mention that, anthropologically, humanity is a Cosmic 'race', with mankind existing throughout the Universe, and I quote numerous scientific, geologic and antiquities sciences findings and discoveries that confirm the fact that mankind did NOT originate on earth but is truly 'from the stars'! Like the Ohlo 'find', in Gabon, West Africa, in 1976, reported in Smithsonian (I believe!), where they found a uranium 'deposit' that was not an ordinary uranium mine, but was, instead, a 'deposit' of uranium in concentric 'layers'. But the unusual fact was that all the uranium was 'residue', the nuclear 'left-over', taken out of a nuclear reactor! Humanity had found a nuclear 'dump', but that 'dump' had been buried there, undisturbed, for 1.8 BILLION years!

  361. Another 'finding', which I note at the beginning of one of my Lectures (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lecture1.html), is the evidence, from actual 'digs' as well as 'verbally' from the Mahabarata (not spelled right, I think) and other Indian 'histories', about the atomic war that took place on the Indian subcontinent over 63,000 years ago! And something about the 'air battles', between aircraft, in the Vedanta 'texts'! I also refer to such events in my Lecture 3 (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lecture3.html), where I also note the schools and institutes, here in the Bay Area and around the world, that have graduate courses in Consciousness Studies, including my Alma Mater, the California Institute for Transpersonal Psychology (which is now ITP, in Palo Alto), where I studied under Dr. June Singer, a direct protege of Carl Jung and the Jung Institute in Switzerland. In fact, in that Lecture 3, I quote Dr. Singer twice, from her book, "Boundaries of The Soul". She also has a number of other good books, "Androgyny", "Energies of Love" and so forth. I studied at CITP back in the '60's, probably when you were at Harvard.

    Regards,
    Jerome

    12 Feb 2003 18:03 EST
    Richard

  362. Apparently your comments recently have inspired me to look at something in the news today that I might have overlooked. And you have probably already seen this 'news item', since you recently asked me what I thought about 'Dark Energy', to which I replied that I was not knowledgeable or up-to-date on the term.

  363. Well, as I logged into Netscape today, there it was, on the CNN 'tickertape'!
    "How The Universe Began, and How It Will End!", from Time Magazine. Here's the URL: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html
    It talks about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Axions and Consciousness, but you've probably seen this piece already. But at least your comment had stirred me to look at this, and I found it interesting. Now I'm waiting for that great Theoretical Physicist Richard Ruquist to explain the further details of Dark Matter to all these 'Old Boys'! Maybe it'll make the cover of Time, as that piece did!

    Jerome

    13 Feb 2003 :25 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  364. I do suspect that the positive and negative charges, charges of consciousness, may be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

    (Personal comments in this email omitted.)

  365. I think he best I can do is to plant some seeds that others more learned than I will have to harvest.

    Yours,
    Richard

    13 Feb 2003 15:17 EST
    Richard

  366. In reply to your posting:
    "I think the best I can do is to plant some seeds that others more learned than I will have to harvest."

  367. Actually, I think someone somewhere said that that is all we can do! That is probably the same for me also, in that I can only do that which I am shown to do and which 'comes to me', which is within my resources and abilities to do (and they likewise are limited as are yours). I have written in QUFD someplace (maybe more than once) that if this were truly a world that was an egalitarian and Participatory Democracy (in which the 98% of the world's 'riches' and resources that are controlled/owned by the world's top 2% were to be equally distributed, NOT Communistically, but Social Humanitarianly (whatever that is!), then everyone would have the freedom and independence and resources to "Do Unto Others ..." in whatever way would be needed, but probably not much, because everyone would have a Good Life, doing as they were 'Born to Do', in Service to Others and All, sort of similar to H.G.Wells's view of Utopia, which I have quoted on the QUFD website in the QUALIA 9 document. It is patently false, as Science has proven, that all of humanity, IF allowed access to the totality of the world's resources (including humanity itself), would 'drag-down' any and all efforts to progress in this world. Science has instead shown that 'abundance furthers abundance', IF all of humanity has access thereto all such abundance.

  368. As to your comment regarding being a 'Theoretical Physicist' ... Hey! You are WHAT you ARE, no matter what anyone else may think! IF YOU DO the 'work', fulfill the requirements, and 'BE' that WHICH YOU ARE, then you can truly say, "I AM THAT I AM!", whatever that might be! If you think and produce results as a Theoretical Physicist, then you must be one! I am reminded of the story (maybe from Einstein), how this great 'person' (whoever it was) received a post from some mere mortal in India, but upon investigation of the Works of that 'mere mortal', the Great Person realized that here was a most important Soul with important Work to Contribute to the Whole of humanity, and thusly the Great Person 'helped' the 'mere mortal' in whatever way was necessary! Of course, such 'humanitarian' civility and goodness may have been more pre-eminent back in the old days, before 'dog eat dog' became the reality of today.

  369. I'd say, further, that you're probably doing pretty good, within your limitations, as I would likewise say for myself. Life may be Good, in a limited perspective, but that is 'What Is', as the Man Upstairs may have so provided (And I DO 'Give Thanks', for all that He/She does provide!)

  370. The only additional comment I would make, which I think you are already realizing, is that things and times, here in Corporeality, may be 'nebulous', uncertain, crazy, dangerous and even 'untrustworthy', as to people and events (Lucifer's 'doings', of course!), but when one 'Lives in the Moment', as I have called it on the pages of QUFD, meaning that one is Living IN the Positivity of that Guy Upstairs ... THEN you can TRUST (THERE, in Incorporeality, in SPIRIT!), what is 'Given to You' BY that Guy Upstairs, and Life can become beautiful! That is what I meant by my previous email's Subject, when I said you were 'Inspired'! When one Lives In Spirit, rather than in 'response' to all the Negativities of the world, one can also use that other famous expression (Who was it? I'll have to ask Christ if it was one of his 'admonishments' unto mankind.), "Be IN this world, but Be not OF this world!" And Yes, I do watch that TV program once in awhile, even though many people might consider it 'hokey' and too overly 'supplicative' to the Guy Upstairs, "Touched By An Angel". So be sure to 'pat your shoulder' once in awhile, in Thanks to that Personal Guardian Angel who might be sitting there on your shoulder, who 'gets you through' every day, WITHOUT ANY RELIGION WHATSOEVER, if that is what the case may be!

    Best Regards
    Jerome

    13 Feb 2003 16:09 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  371. Please forgive a very brief reply.

  372. The guy was Hardy, a math prof in England, who invited the Indian named ??? Ramijunian ??? to come to England.

  373. The Indian guy was interesting. He used your technique to arrive at profound theorems that he could not derive. That is, he got it by direct revelation. There are still some of his theorems that have not been derived yet, but most of them have, by other mathematicians.

  374. My problem is that I do not have a good enough memory to derive support for my ideas. But on the other hand, it does help me live in the moment.

    Yours,
    Richard

    14 Feb 2003 8:13 EST
    Richard

  375. You got it!
    "My problem is that I do not have a good enough memory to derive support for my ideas. But on the other hand, it does help me live in the moment."

  376. Same here. As I told you previously, I've burned out several times in my lifetime and the memory banks of my lower mind, the self, i.e., everyday superficial 'consciousness', are almost non-existent. (Remember, I also mentioned to you that I had to read and re-read QUFD several times before I could understand it!) If it were not for the fact that I can access my Soul and the Collective by 'Living in the Moment' (which means BEING, i.e., concentrating, 'In the Moment', NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES!), I would be almost worthless, like an Alzheimer's patient. But when you can access the Collective, you can just sit back and let the memories come to you (which is also less stressful!), because YOU DON'T HAVE THEM in YOUR mind, but instead, you are 'tapping' the Collective Consciousness of all of humanity, INCLUDING YOURS, which is permanently (time/space, past/present/future, is ONE, in the Unitary Condensate of the Collective) recorded in the Collective. (ALL 'inputs', from everywhere, become a permanent record in the Collective, so at least this aspect of 'Dark Matter', human consciousness, is forever expanding!) And the wonderful thing about that is that you can also 'access' the Minds OF OTHER PEOPLE as well, in the Collective, since all of humanity is there. (Although it also depends on your level of Trust and Grace with the Guy Upstairs, as to exactly who and what 'other person' you would be allowed to 'access'. It seems to be on a 'need to know' basis. If you have a valid 'need to know', He will make another's 'memories' available to your consciousness. But the key word here is Trust!)

  377. I remember (actually, the Guy Upstairs just 'delivered' the memory to me, this moment!) when I was studying at C.I.T.P. (the California Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, in Menlo Park, California) back in the 60's (which is now just ITP, in Palo Alto, Calif) under Dr. June Singer, the direct prot‚g‚ of Carl Jung (whom I have quoted several times in QUFD). Sometimes classes could be 'quite intense', as you might call it. There were no student chairs in some classes, only mattresses on the floor. The class time would be spent in 'consciousness', in another 'dimension', another time/space 'reality', in your mind, exploring whatever it was you might find there! One of Dr. Singer's quotations (from the lecture3.html page of QUFD) was:
    Dr. Singer's interpretation of the Collective Consciousness is this:
    "The collective unconscious is better conceived as an extension of the personal unconscious to its wider and broader base, encompassing contents which are held in common by the family, by the social group, by tribe and nation, by race, and eventually by all of humanity. Each succeeding level of the unconscious may be thought of as going deeper and becoming more collective in its nature. The wonder of the collective unconscious is that it is all there, all the legend and history of the human race, with its unexorcised demons and its gentle saints, its mysteries and its wisdom, ALL within each one of us - a microcosm within the macrocosm. The exploration of this world is more challenging than exploration of the solar system; and the journey to inner space is NOT necessarily an easy OR a safe trip."

  378. So, as I said, accessing your Soul, and Being in Spirit, In the Moment, and TRUSTING in what takes place there ... Hey! That is what it is all about!

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    19 Feb 2003 10:53 EST
    Richard

  379. "Oh, Wondrous are the places, to which that Guy Upstairs does lead one!"

  380. Well, for whatever reason, I thought I'd let you know about something that happened this morning. I signed on the InterNet (currently using EarthLink), checked my email services and then sat back, ready to logout. But then I had this thought occur and before I knew what was happening I was typing a search term into the Google search box. It was 'Quantum Mind 2003 Conference'!

  381. Well, just like that, I was at the Conference website! I looked it over real quick and then started reading, in detail, the Abstracts. And this is what I've got to tell you about.

  382. I've only gotten thru the first few so far, but what strikes me is the completely different 'tone-of-voice' (i.e., perspective) of the Presenters of these Abstracts, than the last time that I looked at the 'Abstracts/Papers' of such a Conference. I can now see that your perspective (which I have personally applauded!) and that of your 'colleagues', IS QUITE WELL approaching the 'criteria' and Principles of QUFD!

  383. Why I say this is that in the few Abstracts that I have read so far, EVERY ONE HAS, in some way, made a 'reference' to some fundamental Principle or aspect of QUFD! A Team from Italy (I think it was) was referring to the quantum 'partitions' of Mind and Consciousness, which I would have called 'dimensions', condensates or ground-states. And then there is the following quotation, which I will paste here following, referring to the word QUALIA, which I have used as a series of documents that more thoroughly (than the Main QUFD document) 'explore' and detail facets of specific QUFD Principles or Realities! Here it is:
    "The only objective evidence for consciousness: The quantum experiment. Bruce Rosenblum (Department of Physics University of California at Santa Cruz), Fred Kuttner.
    In the absence of objective, third-person evidence of conscious experience, i.e., qualia,..."

  384. I am amazed at what I have read so far, as to how close your Conference has come to that (thinking) which has so far been 'delivered' unto this humble Soul. Of course, your colleagues are yet 'couching' any and every idea or expression of Consciousness in some kind of corporeal reality but at least they are beginning to approach an incorporeal perspective. To that I say, Hallelujah and I sure do Wish You the Best, Richard!

  385. Oh, incidentally, on the Google search list, I noticed that the second next listing item had your name on it, so I will be checking to see what wonders-of-wonders 'recognition' has been so far attributed to you merely by being listed in the Google database.

    Jerome

    19 Feb 2003 11:04 EST
    Richard

  386. Maybe I spoke too soon (regarding my just sent email). The next few Abstracts (for the Plenary Sessions) that I read were by neurophysicists who were still trying to stuff 'mind' into the brain and its 'processes, as to the source of 'mind'!

    Jerome

    19 Feb 2003 18:19 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  387. I recommend reading the Skeptic column in this month's Scientific American- the one with the feathered dinosaur on the cover.

  388. That column entitled "Demon-Haunted Brain" pg. 47, is by Michael Shermer, the publisher of the Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and author of WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS. He essentially is saying that all the paranormal evidence (like what I use to suggest a non-local consciousness) is localized in the brain because the brain has measurable effects when these experiences occur.

  389. I wrote his magazine saying that measurable brain correlations with OBE type experiences do not rule out the actuality of the experience. And I attached my paper for him to criticize. Sometimes adverse publicity is the best kind.

    Yours,
    Richard

    20 Feb 2003 11:49 EST
    Richard

  390. You're probably right about adverse publicity. I've had enough of it with regard to QUFD for years now, in that if you go to most any search engine and input the search term 'QUFD', you will find about 70-75% positive listings in review of QUFD but there are also that 25-30% negative reviews as well, including The Skeptic and the Daily Web Review. As you say, such reviews would nominally be okay, but most of such reviews are not okay because, when one reads the review, it is obvious that the reviewer never spent more than a minute or two reading the piece and therefore, due to that person's individual biases and misunderstandings of what he/she had actually read, what you do find in the review is not at all what is to be found in the article/website being 'reviewed' and is, in most cases, completely wrong and misleading to the public. And when such a 'review' is dealing with scientific information and perspectives, especially new and unknown realities, such a review can be harmful, especially when read by reputable scientists who might rely upon such a review for the 'truth' of a perspective, when they don't have time to read the actual piece themselves. So I have my doubts about such 'reviews' but they are there and do exist. The only hope one can put in such a review is that it might bring your article to a reader's attention, who might then actually read it and thusly realize that the reviewer was completely off-base and wrong.

  391. Incidentally, Richard, I see you have had your own 'detractors', on the webpages of the astronomy.net Forum. That is where I found the other article that I mentioned to you was listed as the third listing under Google's listings for the Quantum Mind 2003 Conference and which had your name prominently displayed in the title block for the article. I read your contributions to the July 9, 2002 astronomy.net Forum and then I started to notice that subsequent replies to your comments were getting a bit 'derisive' from several Forum participants. I didn't bother to read the rest of the Forum comments up to date, but I did 'register' and 'contribute' a response to 'aurino' (I believe it was), who said he couldn't 'understand' such things as physics and consciousness! That sort of got to me, in that, as you know, I view the content and context of QUFD to be simple enough for 5 year-old kids to understand! So my brief 'contribution' to the Forum (actually to 'aurino's comment) was to refer him to QUFD, with the further comment that if he/she was an adult, he/she may not understand QUFD in that it has been written for 5 year-old kids!

  392. As to the remainder of the Conference 'Abstracts', they seemed to be an eclectic mix of old and new perspectives (I didn't read them all), so I guess that is to be expected at this stage of introduction of yet another new perspective, with each attendee at such a conference having their own personal 'proclivities' for accepting and rejecting that which they might encounter. It is, again, as I have said on the pages of QUFD, in quoting Dale Carnegie and his Self-Improvement Courses, that something needs to be repeated to another person three times, because the first time, the person will hear only that which he/she knows already and wants to hear AND NOTHING MORE; the second time, he/she will hear maybe what someone else had 'told' that person; and the third time, he/she might actually hear that which you are telling that person (MAYBE!)

  393. And so the 'Realities' of Life are so extant, Richard. May you bear well under them and find your Staff Blowing Well Upon the Breeze!

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome

    20 Feb 2003 13:47 EST

  394. Welcome to the forum. Now that you are here or there or everywhere, I'll have to clean up my language

  395. Gotta run. Dentist next after shoveling off a roof all morning.

    Yours,
    Richard

    20 Feb 2003 18:04 EST

  396. Well, Richard, you don't have to cleanup your language at all. I did notice that you were quite active in the Forum, but only by perusing the message titles, where I saw your moniker quite often, but I didn't take the time to read anything. I'm not much of a joiner as to 'ChatRoom' services like that Forum, and I only joined in order to file a single response. I do not like to spend my time 'conversing' with obstreperous people in real-time where one's comments can instantaneously be mis-interpreted, especially when others do not have the concept of reality that you do. So don't look for me to be there often at all. In fact, I had a while just to find the specific Forum 'thread', and I finally found it by going back to Google and inputting 'Quantum Mind 2003 Conference', which brought up your posting to the Forum about the Conference. Instead of my Mind 'roaming' cyber-space, I'd rather have it roaming dimensional space. Actually, that is not quite right, as defined by QUFD, as to 'space', in that dimensions are condensates that are not necessarily time and space specific, in that a property of a condensate is unitary temporality and spatiality. But then, once you 'plunk' your consciousness down into a specific condensate, and become one-with, or unitary-with, that condensate-dimension, THEN time and space ARE RELATIVE within that dimension-condensate. So I guess I could say that I enjoy traveling the multiple-universes and dimensions that are out there, finding what is new and different, rather than what man has created in the here and now of this dimension. (As I mentioned to you one time, you might find it quite enjoyable 'conversing' with an ant, in its dimension. I found an ant to be a quite intelligent being, or form of intelligent Life!) But, as they say, to each his own!

    Jerome

    24 Feb 2003 19:16 EST
    Richard

  397. I've been re-reading both our conversations and your Paper the last few days and I have a concern regarding one topic that has been omitted. Granted, you may not even wish to introduce that topic at such a prestigious international scientific conclave, but I would imagine that the word itself is well within scientific 'boundaries' for discussion (even by Classical Newtonians!) So, tell me whether, as to your thinking, it is or is not beyond scientific consideration.

  398. That word is SENTIENCE, and I ask about it because it is one of the most primary aspects of the QUFD website (I am, herewith, concerned for the 'integrity' of QUFD, AS it might be 'interpreted' by any scientist who might read it, in looking for the 'answers' that your Paper might 'imply' might be found in QUFD!) QUFD discusses Sentience and its part in human and cosmological existence many times, although, granted, many times I have also used alternative 'terminology' and words to describe 'Sentience', those alternative words primarily being 'Spirit' and 'Incorporeality'.

  399. As to 'Spirit', I can see that you may not wish to introduce that word into your scientific Paper, even though the QUFD definition of Spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Spiritualism' or even 'Religion'. I did note that, at one point in your Paper, I believe that you did imply that QUFD has some basis in Religion or was a religiously-based 'scientific interpretation' of physics principles and theory, which is not at all accurate, in that QUFD has NO religious affiliation or implication in its 'Principles' or Model. As to 'Spirit', when I use that word it refers to purely scientific definitions and realities, more specifically meaning SENTIENCE, and certainly NOT meaning 'religion' (as a man-made 'institution')! Of course, in the scientific explanation of QUFD, Sentience/Spirit comes from, and is attributable to, the source of that gigantic BEC condensate, Infinite Consciousness (God)!

  400. As to the other word that I use interchangeably with Sentience and Spirit - Incorporeality - I do believe you may have used that word already, although I sort of sensed that you were 'treading lightly' in doing so.

  401. I am sending you this concern merely with reference to the integrity of QUFD. Because, in the whole, QUFD defines BEC condensates, condensates of consciousness, ground-states, Dark Matter, axion particles and such and more, in the context of SENTIENCE, SPIRIT and INCORPOREALITY, and those terms are important to the understanding of QUFD. Without those aspects, a BEC condensate IS NOT A LIFE-FORM, but merely a chemical 'agglomeration' having no reason, purpose, self-ordering or complex adaptivity to its environment or anything. And that is the most important aspect of QUFD: that because a BEC condensate CAN HAVE SENTIENCE/SPIRIT/INCORPOREALITY, it is thusly ...... ALIVE! A living Life-Form! THAT is what QUFD describes, and Sentience is one of the words used, in explanation that ALL Life has BOTH Corporeal AND Incorporeal aspects!

  402. I can understand if you may be reluctant to use these words in your Paper, Richard. But I do wish you to understand that this is what QUFD is about!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    24 Feb 2003 22:04 EST
    Dear Father Jerome,

  403. I did leave [your word] out: to quote you: "And that is the most important aspect of QUFD: that because a BEC condensate CAN HAVE SENTIENCE/ SPIRIT/ INCORPOREALITY, it is thusly ...... ALIVE! A living Life-Form!"

  404. I left it out because I really did not know what you meant by Sentience. But now I know and it is consistent but elaborates on my earlier quote of Piero Scaruffi, who said BECs have a primative form of free will. So I am sure I can get it in without many extra words. I'll do it now and attach the result. Other parts, especially the Bohm model have been revised completely since I last sent you a copy. Actually I think I should copy it into this text.

    [Copy of Paper omitted here.]

  405. So I hope what I wrote is acceptable. Although this is a survey paper, I do want to include mention of the essential aspects of each model.

    Good to hear from you.

    Yours,
    Richard

    25 Feb 2003 17:12 EST
    Richard

  406. I just had a 'eureka', as you might call it! Actually, it is not a eureka as far as QUFD is concerned, because this 'eureka' is stated many times in the pages of QUFD, but that is the very reason that I have been overlooking it as an 'answer' to your most persistent question, in that the answer is OBVIOUS!

  407. What I am referring to is your persistent search for the coupling 'mechanism' between the brain and Mind. And here I will again go back to the point that I keep saying, which is that in an incorporeal condensate (which is what really is the MEDIUM which is 'coupling' between the brain and mind), incorporeal 'functions' are DYNAMIC, they are NOT 'mechanical'!

  408. So the answer lies in the difference in meaning between a 'mechanism' and a 'dynamic'! And that is WHAT? A 'mechanism' is a function that can be REPEATED, can be 'proven', because the very existence of that functioning occurs in a TIME and SPACE reality, or 'dimension', as QUFD calls it. But a 'dynamic' is a function THAT CANNOT BE REPEATED ... EVER, because a 'dynamic' takes places in a quantum unitary field, a unitary condensate, WHERE TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST, and all is UNITARY and INSTANTANEOUS!

  409. This is the difference between brain and mind. Brain is corporeal and mechanical, and corporeal functions can be repeated. Mind is incorporeal and unitary-dynamic, and any function that occurs in any unitary-instant IS NOT NECESSARILY REPEATABLE, because the 'inputs' to that unitary condensate which led to the 'perturbation/criticality/decision/self-ordered output' AT THAT INSTANT (as converted TO corporeality in the coupling between brain and mind), MAY NEVER EVER BE EXTANT, or come into existence, AGAIN!

  410. Brain exists in time and space. Mind DOES NOT! It exists in the unitary field of all quantum forces, therefore its 'dynamics' CANNOT HAVE ANY RELATIVITY TO time and space (and therefore CANNOT BE REPEATED)! This is why I have been stressing to you the difference between 'differentiated relativity' and 'undifferentiated relativity', as the difference between brain (and its functions/mechanics) and mind (with its instantaneous and NOT REPEATABLE 'dynamics'). Such is why QUFD defines mind as 'dynamic', because TIME AND SPACE do not exist in the mind!

  411. Does this help at all?

    Jerome

    25 Feb 2003 18:09 EST
    Richard

  412. Regarding my just previous email, I came across this following quotation in my Dec 24 post to you, just following a large paragraph where I essentially say the same thing as I have sent to you in my Eureka post:
    "Another consideration is the 'non-locality' characteristic of the condensate of consciousness, QUFD principle postulating that the condensate is, of course, a Unitary Field of the quantum forces, INCLUDING zero Gravity, making the very actions/dynamics of the condensate 'non-local' in the functioning thereof. This means that at any point where a portion of the condensate shall exist (such as in the glial nuclei of the human brain!), the 'dynamics' that might take place there are INTEMPORAL, having NO Time or Space 'existence' other than that appropriately 'correlative' to such intemporal characteristics of zero-gravity [within the condensate] as may exist INSTANTANEOUSLY. Although, as I imply in my http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/lecture4.html document on the "Quantum Physics of Time", THE RESULTS OF such instantaneous 'dynamics' DO EXIST IF 'OBSERVED' (quantum mechanical principle), observation in the PRESENT 'moment' bringing into existence, 'creating', past and future 'correlates'."

    Hope this helps.
    Jerome

    25 Feb 2003 18:34 EST
    Richard

  413. Just went back to reading my post to you of Dec. 24 and found that I just had to re-post to you the next paragraph (following the paragraph that I just posted to you in Eureka addendum). Here it is:
    "Again, the 'Establishment' will probably consider such theorization null and void, EVEN IF such CAN BE 'experienced' IN CONSCIOUSNESS BUT NOT, necessarily, REPEATED, EXCEPT IN CONSCIOUSNESS! And can they accept the fact that the consciousness of the human mind could be 'influenced' by [quantum] 'correlations' from elsewhere in the Cosmos, elsewhere in Incorporeality, elsewhere in 'dimensionality' (even though any number of researchers have already written about 'parallel worlds'?)"

  414. Just thought I'd let you ponder these aspects of QUFD, especially because QUFD stresses a very important difference between brain and mind and that is that the actions/dynamics of the mind TAKE PLACE IN A BEC CONDENSATE that is UNITARY of all the quantum forces! That alone should differentiate mind from anything corporeal, although, as you have postulated with your "C" particle, there are aspects of the quantum axion particle that DO EXIST in corporeality, as invisible aspects of every corporeal particle, but the major operational dynamics of quantum axion particles take place in Incorporeality and that is where Sentience comes in.

  415. BUT, as you have said somewhere, THE RESULTS of the actions of Mind TAKE PLACE IN corporeality, therefore the invisible corporeal aspects of your quantum axion "C" particle are important, because without that quantum wave collapse IN CORPOREALITY there would be no RESULTS of those 'dynamics' that take place in Sentience/Spirit/Incorporeality! In fact, somewhere on the pages of QUFD, I have stated that Corporeality could NOT EXIST without Incorporeality! The quantum 'world' of UNdifferentiated Relativity (Sentience/Spirit/Incorporeality) does beget the Differentiated Relativity of the physical/material 'world'!

    Regards,
    Jerome

    25 Feb 2003 21:30 EST
    Father Jerome,

  416. I gather from the last three responses from you that you agree with how I have written your section as you have not mentioned it at all.

    Richard

    26 Feb 2003 8:15 EST
    Richard

  417. I leave that up to you, Richard, as to your 'creation' and what you are comfortable with as to both the integrity of what you are trying to convey and your personal assessment of the 'official' acceptance possibilities of such theoretical postulations as most attendees at the Conference do so place in their individual perspectives of what is 'scientific' and what is not. I am merely detailing to you specific aspects of QUFD that, in re-reading your posts, I realize you had asked about or mentioned, and which I wish to clarify to an extent that I may not have done so previously at such time that you had actually raised the specific point. In doing this, I realize that we have, as you have said, our differences of perspective, such that you have pointed out that you are more of a 'materialist' than I am. I can accept that perspective as to your Paper, but I do wish to at least 'pass it by you' with respect to 'answers' to your concerns that are, from my more 'Spiritual' perspective, somewhat at variance with your current 'material' viewpoint, so that you can at least accept that more 'Spirit-based' integrity of my QUFD work. In other words, as you have said, I merely want to assure myself that our understanding of these points that you have raised is 'on the same wavelength'. Whether you make any changes in your Paper as you may feel to be necessary for the integrity of the Paper and its ultimate presentation, again I leave that to you.

  418. Hey, it sounds like you've been shoveling snow. I haven't seen snow in almost 30 years, but I'll sympathize with your predicament.

  419. One last thing for now, Richard. I was going to add one more post to your Inbox the other day, in clarification of another point which you had raised, but the entire post was lost when my Internet connection dropped for some reason. I tried to immediately rescue it but unsuccessfully, and then when I tried to re-do it all over again, I realized that I had also lost my 'connection', for the time being, to the Source of that 'clarification' (the Guy Upstairs), even though it was commonly available details that were readily available on the pages of QUFD. In other words, I just wasn't up to the 'energy' required to re-do it at that time.

  420. My Internet connection is once again solid and it is 5 AM in the morning and my 'connection' to the Guy Upstairs also feels good, so I am going to try it again. I'll get back to you in a few hours or so when I am finished. (Yes, okay, so it might take 'a few hours', but that is nothing to me when the work involved is important to the understanding of others and what the results thereof might so benefit all of humanity. I trust that this is the same way that you might also view the importance of your work, that you are likewise willing to 'Be In The Moment', for as long as it takes, when it is something important beyond yourself!)

    Best Regards,
    Jerome

    26 Feb 2003 9:42 EST

  421. Okay, Richard, here it is. It is with regard to your Dec 24 response to my Dec 24 postings, in which you made the following statement:
    "Consciousness has to be, or be in, the axion condensate which does have permanence."

  422. Well, I would say in one respect that that statement is correct but from another point of view it is not correct. And yet both points of view are correct. Let me detail what I mean.

  423. The root of the problem here gets back to the difference between brain and mind, brain being physical/corporeal and mind being sentient/spirit/incorporeal. Further than that is the quantum definition of two words: 'dynamics' and 'results'.

  424. Dynamics are the functions/processes that take place in the unitary incorporeality of a BEC condensate, in response to the 'inputs' TO that condensate, such 'inputs' usually being from the material 'world' of corporeality where time and space are extant (differentiated relativity versus undifferentiated relativity). Such is therefore the reason that such 'processes', 'dynamics', CAN NEVER EVER BE REPEATED AGAIN! Because those 'inputs', from corporeality TO that incorporeal condensate, WILL HAVE CHANGED, as to the time/space continuum from which they originate, such that repeated 'inputs' from that same time/space continuum CAN NEVER REPRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS as the original 'results'! (At the least, TIME will have progressed at least one instant more, producing a different result than that of the previous instant!) In this respect, the processes that take place in the undifferentiated incorporeality of the unitary condensate, the 'dynamics', are INSTANTANEOUS, in response to those INSTANTANEOUS 'inputs' FROM EVERYWHERE, that unitarily EXIST at that unitary moment within that condensate, and then will never exist again (as to the corporeal 'source' of each 'input', coming as it does, from OUTSIDE of the condensate!)

  425. So DYNAMICS are NOT permanent, but vary with the 'inputs'! BUT the RESULTS OF THOSE DYNAMICS ARE PERMANENT (quantum principle, 'observation', in the physical/corporeal 'world', produces 'results' that are permanent). ONLY the 'results' are permanent, NOT the 'dynamics' that produce such 'results', except for the 'observation' that 'selects' and 'outputs' such 'results' INTO corporeality, the physical 'world', FROM incorporeality!

  426. BUT, I need to throw in an additional consideration here, as to WHERE the 'dynamics' and the 'results' thereof ARE TAKING PLACE! And again, it boils down to the difference between brain and mind, differentiated relativity versus undifferentiated relativity!

  427. Because IF BOTH the 'dynamics' AND the 'results' thereof, are taking place in INCORPOREALITY, i.e., strictly within a condensate (or condensates, in answer to your question about the 'coupling mechanism' between condensates, because, in such a case, the individual condensates are yet sub-condensates of the larger condensate within which they exist, and thusly any 'transactions' between condensates are taking place in the unitary incorporeality of the larger condensate), then BOTH the 'dynamics' AND the 'results' thereof ARE PERMANENT!

  428. Such is the case for any and all thoughts, actions and experiences of all of humanity, which are permanently 'recorded', FOREVER, in that unitary condensate of all the quantum forces (thusly past/present/future is unitary) which is the Collective Consciousness of humanity. The same applies to the individual local mind, as to those pre-established 'preferences' (phyllogenetic 'echoes') which exist in any human being, although these preferences are subject to change over time.

  429. So IF the 'output', the 'result', is IN, within, an incorporeal condensate, WHERE IT IS NOT 'OBSERVED' by the physical, corporeal 'world', THEN THAT 'result' is permanent, AS WELL AS THE 'dynamics' that create that 'result'! BOTH the 'dynamics' AND THE RESULT can be REPEATED FOREVER! But ONLY INSIDE of that undifferentiated relativity of a unitary condensate! By quantum principle, when any aspect of past/present/future IS OBSERVED, and thusly brought into the corporeal 'world', it is no longer REPEATABLE, but can only exist in that single 'result', which is itself permanent! (Somehow, as to the 'observation' thereof!)

  430. I discuss these realities on a number of pages in QUFD, especially with relation to 'transactions' and 'dynamics' between condensates BEYOND HUMANITY, in the various Spirit 'dimensions' of Consciousness. But again, this is talking about incorporeality and the realities thereof, which is accessible by the human Mind, BUT NOT the brain! The brain, being in the corporeal, physical 'world', cannot know of such 'dynamics' of incorporeality UNLESS the Mind 'translates' or accesses such incorporeal processes.

  431. Richard, I know I've been extensive here again, but I hope you can understand these important differences between brain and Mind, as to the quantum processes of 'dynamics' and the 'results' thereof.

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    26 Feb 2003 10:45 EST
    Father Jerome,

  432. Thanks for the extensive posts. As some things can never be repeated again, it would seem to be an explanation of beginners luck.

  433. Whereas the means to make things repeatable then involves the Collective Consciousness and allows the development of habit.

  434. However, all this is mostly beyond my paper, but still appreciated. The words 'collective consciousness' might deserve mention in the text of the paper. What I am trying to do is to convey a feeling for the scope of your work without saying anything stupid, or misleading. [i.e., what would be considered 'stupid' or 'misleading' by someone who does not know or understand what they are reading!]

  435. I hope that what is written accomplishes that.

    Regards,
    Richard

    26 Feb 2003 11:26 EST

  436. Hey Richard, Thanks for the vote of confidence and I likewise return it.

  437. I want to add one thing more to my last posting (it seems the Guy Upstairs just brought it to my attention).

  438. This is with reference to your axion "C" particle of Consciousness, as well as the difference between differentiated relativity and undifferentiated relativity. You have said that your "C" particle has an invisible part of every other corporeal quantum particle (as I understand your definition, or did you mean that the invisible axion particle is a part of every molecule, which is a big difference? If so, this would then explain how the coupling works between mind and brain, between the glial nuclei and the H2 molecule of the synapse which is surrounded by that glial cell, with the quantum wave collapse of the 'dynamics' from the incorporeal side of the condensate's undifferentiated relativity RESULTING IN the 'switching' of the H2 molecule in the differentiated relativity of the corporeal brain), which I can certainly agree with, in that when the incorporeal processing of the condensate's 'dynamics' is completed (involving the incorporeal axion particles WITHIN the condensate), it is the quantum wave collapse from the condensate (UNdifferentiated relativity) TO corporeality and corporeal individual-force-field quantum particles (differentiated relativity) that produces the 'results' that are 'created' in the material 'world' by 'observation'! This then agrees with what I have previously said in my previous postings that CORPOREALITY COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT INCORPOREALITY! All particles of the physical/material 'world', obeying the individual quantum forces/fields/spins that govern their very existence (which is relatively permanent, in the corporeal 'world'), are yet 'influenced' SOMEHOW (I'll let you define HOW, as to that material 'world'!) by that invisible constituent axion particle of each of these other particles (or molecules!), which 'reacts' to the quantum wave collapse FROM 'Spirit', or incorporeality, which is the very basis of their very existence!

  439. Does this agree with your thinking, Richard, as I am quoting QUFD, but I am trying to 'picture' or structure/define it, in a way that agrees with your 'material/corporeal' viewpoint without compromising the integrity of what QUFD states?

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    26 Feb 2003 11:39 EST
    Richard

  440. Incidentally, another Paper to be presented at the Conference, has already beaten you to the use of the 'Collective Consciousness of humanity'. I remember when I was reading the Abstracts that are available online that one of the Abstracts mentioned the 'Collective', but used the words 'the Akashic Records', which is the same thing! However, I don't know who it was nor the context in which they referred to the Collective/Akashic Records.

    Jerome

    26 Feb 2003 17:38 EST
    Father Jerome,

  441. Actually it was Piero Scarufi's thinking. I elaborated a bit in a previous discussion, but have since taken it out. So right now the only coupling mechanism in the paper is the Bohm mechanism.

  442. I took the C business out except for Scaruffi's quote because a couple things about it did not make sense, and Bohm's things did make sense.

  443. But the way I see it, either the electron is complex enough as Bohm has said to sense the axion fields and follow them, or there is some kind of unknown force based on a new charge "C" that makes a dumb electron follow its density variations.

  444. What is your intuition as to which it is- smart or dumb electrons.

    Yours,
    Richard

    26 Feb 2003 18:08 EST

  445. Sorry, Richard, can't help you there. I may have a First Class FCC license and have worked for over 30 years in the telecommunications industry to which an electron is the fundamental unit, but as to the corporeal physics, right now I'm as dumb as that dumb electron you mention, having, as I mentioned previously, burnt-out on such things. Unless I hear from the Guy Upstairs, I can't do you any good. But Best Wishes on the Paper, as it is, and let me know if you want me to put it on the QUFD website after the Conference is over.

    Jerome

    26 Feb 2003 22:40 EST

  446. You can add it to your site on St. Patrick's Day, March 17th. Please use the attached version as it has the italics and bolds. But you will need Word to open it.

    Richard

    (End of this document.)

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome



| QUFD Opening Page | Main QUFD Document | QUFD Subjects/Categories Page | Site Map |