Qualia XXV: The BASICS (continued): Exploring 'Entanglement', of the Quantum Axion Particle! From the QUFD website, at: http://go.to/QUFD
Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Qualia XXV: The BASICS (continued): Exploring 'Entanglement', of the Quantum Axion Particle!


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

By Father Jerome


    The following email communications, between Father Jerome and Theoretical Physicist Dr. Ruquist, of the Yanniru Foundation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, continues the preceding 'Conversations Between Physicists', in Exploration of the QUFD Principles. Some of the emails contain original thoughts and the replies thereto, and so such emails identify who the person is making the statements.

    We start with an original email to Dr. Ruquist from Father Jerome:

    Richard

  1. I believe I may owe you an Apology! Perhaps, methinks, I was just a bit too hasty, in saying that your term of 'entanglement', was 'beyond' what I was actually 'seeing'! In reality, I have thoroughly reconsidered the 'picture', as I saw it (or see it), and, for the life of me, I just can't come up with any other term that defines what I see as a Reality, any better than your term 'entanglement'. In fact, I have even gone so far as to issue a public Apology to you, contained within my latest Document, Qualia24.html of my Qualia Series of Monographs. Here is the specific copy from within the Qualia24 Document:
    "...Because, no matter WHAT 'reality' a particular axion particle may be a part thereof, THAT particle is yet Coherent-with, or intimately 'entangled' with, each and every OTHER axion particle in the Cosmos! THAT is the Unitary-nature of Incorporeality! (And I must herein apologize to Dr. Ruquist, because as of now, I have yet to 'find' a more adequate term than your 'term', entanglement, which describes the 'reality' of what I have 'seen' and am attempting to define here!) If the word entanglement can define or imply that there exists, at such a singular point-location as we have been discussing here, multitudes and infinitudes of individual quantum axion particles, each one belonging to a different 'reality' (condensate-'dimension'), and each one 'knowing', or 'aware' of, each other, OR NOT, then I would say that we have a valid definition."
  2. Thanks, again, for your discussions, and your input!

    Jerome

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:09 AM
    Subject: Re: Help!

    (Dr. Ruquist) MY COMMENTS BELOW. HOPE U DO NOT MIND CAPS.

    (Jerome) What happened, Richard, that you are stuck on caps???

    On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

    Richard

  3. (Jerome) Help me out, here, as you might so be able to, as you are more expert with 'accepted terminology' in Physics than I am, and thusly you might come up with a 'term' or word to more accurately describe what I am 'seeing'!

  4. I am sorry to say that my consciousness is yet having problems accepting your 'term' entanglement as being the same thing as what I am 'seeing'! As I said, entanglement so far is the closest that I can come to describing the phenomenon but somehow it is just not quite accurate!

  5. Let me detail my dilemma. Entanglement, by its very nature, implies 'separateness', of the particles so entangled, such that each and every entangled particle can yet, supposedly, be identified or somehow recognized as different, somehow, from each and every other particle that is so 'grouped together' within the context of that term 'entanglement'! (And, Pardon me, Richard, but I am merely trying to apply logic to the situation, in order to see any fallacies or otherwise as might exist therein!) And this is where I am having my 'problem', as to what I am 'seeing', as I do NOT consider the axion particles at any single point-location of unification or unitary-naturedness, to be separate, in any way!

  6. (Dr. Ruquist) IT IS TRUE THAT THE TERM 'ENTANGLEMENT' APPARENTLY CAME FROM EPR EXPERIMENTS WHERE SEEMINGLY SEPARATED PARTICLES EXHIBITED UNITARY BEHAVIOR. BUT SINCE THEN I NOTICE THAT THE TERM IS BEING USED FOR ALL UNITARY BEHAVIOR- LIKE THE ELECTRONS AND NUCLEUS OF AN ATOM ARE ENTANGLED.

  7. NOW WHAT IS REALLY ENTANGLED OR UNITARY ARE THE WAVE FUNCTIONS. WHAT YOU MAY BE SEEING ARE WAVE FUNCTIONS. YOGANANDA WROTE ABOUT THIS IN HIS BOOK 'AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI'.

  8. THE WAVE FUNCTIONS OF THE AXIONS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO LITTLE MASS, ARE GLOBAL IN EXTENT AND THEY ALL OVERLAP. WE COULD SAY THEY HAVE GLOBAL ENTANGLEMENT. BUT IT MAY BE MORE ACCURATE TO THINK OF EACH AXION AS GLOBAL IN SIZE. AND BESIDES THAT, BEING A SUPER FLUID, THEY MAY NEVER COLLAPSE INTO A PARTICLE. WE CALL AXIONS PARTICLES FOR CONVENIENCE. BUT ACTUALLY THEY ARE OVERLAPPING WAVES. 'WAVE FUNCTION' IMPLIES A MATH THING. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAVES ACTUALLY EXIST AND THAT PARTICLES ARE JUST HIGHLY CONFINED WAVES. BUT NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT THE BASIC QUANTUM REALITY IS. WHAT YOU SEE MAY BE THE CLOSEST WE CAN GET TO REALITY.

  9. (Jerome) What I am trying to say is that any and all particles, at any individual point-location, such particles being part and parcel of the 'whole' of the most infinite condensate of Consciousness and Incorporeality, are somehow 'merged' into a 'Oneness', at that point-location, whereby any 'notion' of separateness just cannot apply! And such must especially be so, considering that, by the very definition of 'unitary', we are saying that everything that shall contribute to this 'situation', i.e., all known quantum forces/fields and gravities, shall likewise be 'unitary' at said point-location! So, if all forces/fields/gravities are 'unitary', the incorporeal quantum axion particles at that point-location must also be 'unitary'! But, is that the proper word/term? Is there some other term that would be more applicable, in describing such a condition of 'total-merging', of 'oneness', where there is no longer any 'separateness'?

  10. (Dr. Ruquist) OK. I THINK WE ARE IN AGREEMENT. THE WORD PARTICLE IS MISLEADING. WHAT YOU WANT IS TERMINOLOGY THAT WOULD APPLY TO A SUPERCONDUCTOR OR SUPER FLUID. MY SUGGESTION IS TO USE BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATE, OR BEC CONDENSATE FOR SHORT. I THINK THIS MAY COME CLOSEST TO WHAT YOU MEAN. THERE IS ALSO A BCS CONDENSATE, AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT TRANSFORMATION FROM BCS TO BEC. BUT FRANKLY, I FORGET WHAT BCS STANDS FOR EXCEPT THAT IT APPLIES TO SUPER-CONDUCTORS.

  11. (Jerome) Now, however, I also realize, as I have previously and before noted, that 'perspective' is important. Because there are certain aspects of Incorporeality... well, many aspects!... that just cannot be 'seen', or 'observed', from Corporeality. So if one's 'perspective' is actually from Corporeality, perhaps one MIGHT be seeing 'separateness' of particles, rather than 'unity'! But, on the other hand, such an 'observation' itself may be a 'fallacy', as I believe that I have emphatically said that a quantum axion particle, being incorporeal in its very nature, CANNOT be 'observed', from the 'perspective' of Corporeality! A quantum axion particle, being incorporeal, can ONLY be 'seen' (NOT 'observed'!) within Incorporeality!

  12. Now, I also realize, that this might thereby imply that each and every one of those 'unified' particles at our singular point-location, within Incorporeality, can be 'seen', or recognized (but not 'observed'!), as 'separate' particles! Even though they are 'merged', or unitary, at that location!

  13. Well, maybe that is the answer! It all depends on the 'perspective'! But perhaps it also depends on whether one is actually 'observing' something, with the limited definition of that term so implying a 'view-from-Corporeality', OR whether one is merely 'being aware of' something, in one's 'seeing', and not actually 'observing' it, as is the case within Incorporeality!

  14. (Dr. Ruquist) SO FAR WE SEEM TO AGREE. IT'S THE WAVE/PARTICLE DUALITY. WE CAN ONLY OBSERVE PARTICLES. BUT IT SEEMS THAT SOME (ADVANCED?) INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOURSELF CAN SEE WAVES. THAT'S WHAT I GOT FROM YOGANANDA'S BOOK.

  15. (Jerome) But, we also have one further consideration! And that is the very fact that, within the unitary-nature of Incorporeality, any quantum axion particle also has the ability to 'create' time and space, or spacetime, or 'corporeality', as needed, WITHIN Incorporeality, at any specific and necessary point-location, such point-location thereby being both incorporeal and corporeal! (And yet, such is happening WITHIN Incorporeality, the 'corporeality' so 'created' merely being temporary!)

  16. So, taking such additional factor into consideration, do we 'define' all the axion particles at any point-location, as 'entangled', or 'merged', or What?, when some particles can 'see' each other but other particles cannot 'see' each other, and yet from the most Magnificent 'perspective' of Incorporeality, that of Infinite Consciousness (God), we can 'see' ALL of the particles at that point-location!

  17. (Dr. Ruquist) "AXION PARTICLES THAT CREATE SPACE AND TIME"- INTERESTING! - THAT SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE LQG - LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY - WHERE LOOPS OF SOMETHING OR OTHER WEAVE TOGETHER TO MAKE SPACE AND TIME. IN LQG THEORY, SPACETIME, MATTER AND QUANTUM MECHANICS ITSELF, ARE DERIVED QUANTITIES.

  18. (Jerome) What do you think, Richard? Give me a reliable 'term' that accurately describes all this!

    Sincerely,

    Jerome

  19. (Dr. Ruquist) WELL, THE BEC CONDENSATE DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE CREATION OF SPACE TIME.

  20. REMEMBER MY TALKING ABOUT CAHILL'S NEW THEORY OF GRAVITY THAT MAKES DARK MATTER INTO A MATH ANOMALY. TURNS OUT NEWTON'S GRAVITY ONLY WORKS FOR SPHERICAL SYMMETRY. THEN FOR SPIRAL GALAXIES, IF YOU INCLUDE THE NON-SYMMETRIC TERMS THAT NEWTON LEFT OUT, THE SO-CALLED DARK MATTER DISAPPEARS. THAT IS, THE ROTATION OF STARS CAN BE PREDICTED WITHOUT THE INVOCATION OF INVISIBLE MATTER.

  21. THAT'S OF SOME CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE OF MY DARK MATTER MODEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS BASED ON AXIONS IN THE DARK MATTER. BUT IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT AXIONS ARE MUCH MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND, AS YOU SAY, FORM THE VERY BASIS OF SPACETIME AND MATTER AND FORCE, WHICH IS THE PREDICTION OF LQG THEORY AS WELL. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN READING ABOUT LQG OR CAHILL'S THEORY, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF LQG, I CAN SEND YOU LINKS TO THE APPROPRIATE PAPERS AND CAHILL'S WEBSITE.

  22. ISN'T IT INTERESTING, THAT YOU ARE SEEING JUST WHAT I NEED, IN ORDER TO REVISE MY CORPOREAL MODEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS. PERHAPS WE ARE ENTANGLED??

    ALL THE BEST,

    RICHARD

    (Father Jerome's reply)

  23. Ha, Ha, Richard... "...Perhaps we are entangled?" Well, to a certain extent, you are right. I remember taking a Stanford course many years back where the professor introduced the concept of 'Mass-Mind-of-humanity'. But, of course, that was long before I became aware of other 'realities' such as Jung's 'Collective Consciousness of humanity', which, when overlaid upon all the basics of BEC and Complex Adaptive Systems, all made sense in that such was also the very concept of God as a condensate, in which all sub-condensates, including each person of humanity, was also a part thereof the whole of God or Incorporeality. Therefore, based upon what you describe as LQG Theory (and Sorry, Richard, but I'll pass on reviewing the LQG links, as I prefer to get my info 'direct', rather than as 'theorizations'! And I realize that that leaves me out of the network of 'established' scientists, but that's okay, as I have my good friend Richard to 'interpret' between orthodoxy and my unorthodoxy, probably to his advantage some day, but that's okay too, as I am only concerned with the 'Reality' of What Is and how knowing such can benefit all of us!), and 'global-reality', what we each 'think' and experience, is certainly known to any one else of humanity, who has an 'affinity' (meaning being within the same group or condensate of Reality!) with each other in some way! (Of course, in order to 'access' one's Soul, and Incorporeality, and the 'Collective', Jung said, First of All, we have to 'Know ThySelf!', meaning that we are able to 'breach' Jung's Veil of Unknowing/Veil of Separation, between 'self' and 'Soul', which I have described as 'breaching', or eliminating, Lucifer's 'fingers-of-Negativity', that prevent us from 'knowing' ourselves and our Souls!) Such Jungian concepts I have tried to describe, relative to the overall condensate of Consciousness and Incorporeality, in some of my webpages, such as lecture3.html.

  24. Okay, I think you have 'hit the nail on the head' and thusly 'interpreted' or defined, described, exactly what I was looking for! The key, or key words, you have put forth, are 'quantum wave function', and such fits exactly the words and research of theoretical physicist Fred Alan Wolf, of (I think) the Univ. of San Diego, who is one of the few actual scientists whom I have quoted or even referred to on the pages of the QUFD website, and I quote him and some of his concepts in the Main QUFD Document and a few other pages, as well as quoting some of his 'philosophy', in the 'Philosophy of QUFD', which begins the actual detailed sections of the QUFD 'Formulation' in that Main QUFD Document (Qufd2.html)

  25. Anyway, quantum wave functions (which I also describe, ala Fred Alan Wolf, in my original Lecture, the 'Quantum Physics of Time', at: lecture4.html) just naturally seem to relate to what one 'sees' (NOT 'observes') when looking at this 'Big Picture' from the 'perspective' of God or of the overall (or 'global', as you call it!) view! In fact, I think I would say that it is not only a combination of WHAT one is 'viewing' (particle or wavefunction), but also HOW one is 'viewing' whatever one is viewing (meaning 'perspective')!

  26. Because, as I have numerous times already in my writings and in our conversations, pointed out, if one is only 'viewing' something from WITHIN Corporeality, all they will 'see' (actually observe!) is the separateness of particles! (Although, as you already know, I further 'distinguish' particles as of either the corporeal-kind, i.e., bosons, fermions, leptons, quarks, etc., OR of the incorporeal-kind, i.e. axion particles.) But, if one is 'viewing' (NOT 'observing', because one is not within Corporeality, as to what one is 'seeing', but is actually 'viewing' from WITHIN the Mind, from within Consciousness, from Incorporeality, from Undifferentiated Relativity!) something from within Incorporeality, THEN that person will 'see', not only incorporeal particles, but also incorporeal wave functions (or waves!), which is, in 'reality', your 'entanglement' or unity of ALL particles, at a specific point-location.

  27. And, again, your use of terminology is correct, in that by 'viewing' unitary-particles FROM THE 'perspective' of God (i.e., within Consciousness, or within the Mind... which is the ONLY way that Incorporeality can be 'viewed', FROM WITHIN the Mind!), one can then use your term 'global', although, I do feel that that term is limiting, with respect to the actual 'Reality' of that being described. I would more prefer the term 'Cosmic'! But then, I guess, most scientists would say that such is getting a little too close to 'kookiness', such as in 'Kosmic'!)

  28. But, again, as I have said, it is the 'perspective' that is important! And as long as scientists attempt to 'view' Incorporeality from WITHIN Corporeality, all they are going to 'see', observe, is the separateness of corporeal-particles, NOT true unity of particles and/or waves. Because the ONLY place where one can 'see' the unity of everything is from WITHIN THE MIND, which is from within Incorporeality, because the Mind is an incorporeal-condensate, and CANNOT be 'viewed' from anywhere outside of Incorporeality! In other words, Corporeal 'reality' can ONLY 'observe' that which is 'differentiated relativity'! In order to 'view' Incorporeal 'Reality', one must go INTO the Mind, INTO 'Undifferentiated Relativity'!

  29. So, additionally, you are right, as to the term entangled, because when, like the EPR experiments and those of Alain (what was his name, at CERN?), 'viewed' from within Corporeality, any particles would be 'entangled' rather than unitary, IF one is yet able to discern the 'separateness' of the particles. But, this very statement 'begs' the description-of-unity-from-a-much-larger-perspective! Because, as I've said, IF one were to 'view' all of our particles and waves FROM the ultimate 'perspective' of the Mind of God, i.e., from the largest 'globality', AND, as is necessary, from WITHIN one's MIND, rather than from within Corporeality... THEN, one would 'see' the EXACT SAME THING as your 'entanglement', because one WOULD be able to 'see' ALL the quantum axion particles AND their waves, IN THEIR UNITY!

  30. But, I repeat! This can ONLY been 'seen' FROM the 'perspective' of God, or FROM WITHIN the Mind... NOT from outside of the Mind, or from within Corporeality, or any physical/material 'world' or dimension! In other words, it can NEVER be 'observed', in the context of the meaning of that word, as it is used by scientists today! So UNTIL Science can ACCEPT the very concept of being able to 'see' or 'view' something from WITHIN the Mind, from within Incorporeality... they are NOT going to 'see' any or all of the many 'realities' of Incorporeality!

  31. Remember, Richard, back in the 'old days', when scientists also had a 'perspective' of God, before 'Science' was divorced from God, those old-time 'scientists' took God and Incorporeality into consideration, when investigating anything of scientific investigation! Maybe it is time for God and Incorporeality to, once again, become part of scientific lexiconology!

  32. Also, you may have a further key to understanding axion particles and Incorporeality and all the Unity thereof, when you use the term that an axion particle is 'global-in-size'! If I were to translate that, instead, as 'Cosmic-in-size', then I could say that it would be most easy to 'see' EVERY axion particle, as the coherent part and 'particle' of the Whole that it is! Not only that, if 'coherence' was the 'state' of the basic axion particle, as the basic ground-state of any condensate, THEN, I would say, that we could 'view' quantum 'waves' (functions), as being the 'dynamics' OF what these axion particles are DOING... WHEN they are 'active', or in motion, relative TO any 'input' or other 'dynamic' THAT SO ACTIVATES the 'motility' OF these axion particles! (Not sure if 'motility' is correct here, as it more so applies to the spherical-surface motility of an astrophysical black-hole, so I'm not sure I am correct here! But I am trying to describe 'motive forces', that might involve the 'creation/destruction' of spacetime and dimensionality, as well as 'phase-space-shifting' therein such 'realities', as might thusly cause the 'dynamics' that I am attempting to define here. Could you do it for me, Richard? All you have to do is look at THIS condensate-of-Incorporeality, i.e., OUR Cosmos, FROM the other side of a black hole, i.e., from the aspect or 'perspective' of the event-horizon of a white hole, i.e. from another 'dimension' or another Cosmos, NOT our own! THEN, perhaps, you could say that one is thusly 'seeing' things from the 'global', or rather, extra-Cosmic, 'viewpoint'! But scientists, in order to do so, would surely have to get used to 'viewing' any and all 'realities' FROM the Mind of God! THAT is what it will take!

  33. As to 'condensates', Richard, a BEC condensate, or a QUFD condensate, is too substantive a 'reality', to apply such a term to the basics of Incorporeality! Waves and dynamics, and all the various 'activities' and motions OF the basic particles WITHIN ANY specified aggregation-of-purpose, IS a condensate, or a 'dimension', as I call it!

  34. Okay, remember, that quantum axion particles are ONLY extant in Incorporeality, and such is the reason (or logic!) as to why Incorporeality begets Corporeality! Because EVERYTHING in Incorporeality is UNdifferentiated Relativity, meaning that there ARE 'groups' and 'groupings', and 'orders', of various 'purpose' or 'reality', but all such 'groupings' ARE RELATIVE... or related TO, whatever the specific purpose, OR non-purpose, may be!

  35. NOW, when ANY 'grouping', which has a coherent ground-state, or basic 'existence', which is also 'equalized' between ORDER and CHAOS, now receives 'input'... ANY kind of 'input', in any way, that DISTURBS that basic coherence and balance between Order/Chaos... THEN that 'grouping', or condensate ground-state, is going to CALL UPON the additional 'qualities', or attributes, OF the quantum axion particles that comprise that condensate, which 'qualities', in addition to being able to 'create' (and destroy!) spacetime (however, usually EXTERNAL OF a condensate!), also basically are those which might 'process' the additional 'activities' (called dynamics!) that will occur within that condensate as a reaction to such external 'inputs'! And those 'dynamics' ARE: self-ordering (or self-organization, RELATIVE TO that basic 'purpose' OF said condensate, AS AFFECTED BY those 'inputs' that it has received!); adaptibility (to any and all 'realities' and the 'dynamics' thereof); complexity (the ability to integrate simplicities into more complex unities); Sentience (derived from the Spirit-component of an axion particle, this is the means whereby decisions of judgement and all evaluation are made and the results thereof rendered); criticality and points-of-criticality (are the dynamical 'points-of-activity' that appear and disappear instantaneously AT THE EDGE OF CHAOS and Order, as the result of the dynamics taking place); perturbations (which are the 'gatherings', or further 'comings-together-in-purpose' OF those criticalities and dynamics, as such does appear ON the 'landscape' of that condensate's ground-state); and finally, Output (as a phase-space-shifted 'transfer', of the 'results' of all-that-has-taken-place-within-the-condensate, TO another condensate, across the incorporeal 'barrier' between such two condensates!), OR... LIFE, perturbation giving 'vent' TO the 'creation' OF such 'results', in CORPOREALITY, in real-Life existence, OF whatever the Life-form might be!

  36. And now we have thusly entered the realm of Differentiated Relativity, where what has been 'created' in Incorporeality, does now come into existence in Corporeality and in 'separateness', or Differentiation! Incorporeality has begotten Corporeality! An incorporeal condensate has given birth, to a new Life-form, whether that Life-form is a human being, an ant, a tree, a planet, a pulsar, a galaxy, a black hole or whatever the 'entity' might be! (Of course, when a black hole is 'created', inevitably, on the other side of that black hole, in another 'dimension' or Cosmos than our 'dimension' or Cosmos, is a white-hole, wherein the phase-space-shifted massive energies, that were 'inhaled' by the black hole, are thusly 'expelled' into the other Cosmos!)

  37. As to Dark Matter, again it may be a matter of 'perspective'. The very term Dark Matter, to me, implies existence IN Corporeality, which is what Consciousness is! But, remember, Consciousness, nor Incorporeality, cannot be 'seen' FROM Corporeality, even though it pervades all of Corporeality! Remember, Dark Matter is actually Consciousness, which is actually Incorporeality, which not only begets Corporeality but also thoroughly suffuses throughout Corporeality, but it CANNOT BE SEEN! And again, I am defining, or describing, here, FROM a certain 'perspective'! I am saying, FROM the 'perspective' OF Corporeality, it is called Dark Matter, because it is contituent OF and suffusing throughout Corporeality, even though IT CANNOT BE SEEN! At the same time, IF Consciousness, or Dark Matter, could be 'seen', as from the ONLY 'perspective' whereby it CAN be 'seen', that of the overall 'Big Picture' of Infinite Consciousness... from such a 'perspective', it would no longer be known as Dark Matter, but would, instead, be Dark Energy, unified/undifferentiated-in-its-incorporeal-nature, instead of separate/differentiated-in-its-corporeal-nature! Of course, such a 'perspective' is, as I have said, only possible, when scientists begin to go into the Mind, and start to 'view' things from the Mind of God!

  38. Hey, Thanks, Richard! Your 'musings' helped me define my 'realities' further! Hope I might have been able to do the same for you!

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Namaste
    Jerome

    (A further email to Dr. Ruquist from Jerome)

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:20:51 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

    Richard

  39. Just noticed something in addition to my last comments. Your comment, "In LQG theory, spacetime, matter and even Quantum Mechanics itself, are derived quantities!"

  40. (Dr. Ruquist) YES. THAT IS WHY I MENTIONED LQG. IT SEEMED TO BE VERY LIKE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT INCORPOREAL AXIONS.

  41. (Jerome) Holy Mackerel! Well, you were probably referring to Mathematics, as to 'derived quantities', but your statement, philosophically or otherwise than mathematical, ALSO fits everything that I have been saying about Incorporeality and axion particles! Which is that Incorporeality begets Corporeality, or Undifferentiated Relativity 'creates' Differentiated Relativity! I have said that spacetime and matter (corporeality) are, or can be, 'created' BY (derived from!) quantum axion particles (or waves) of Incorporeality! And I've also said that the branch of physics known as Quantum Mechanics is, by its very nature, dealing only with the corporeal/physical/material 'realities' and 'corporeal-entity-particles' of the quantum world or regions and that true QUFD Quantum Physics, which recognizes and investigates the Incorporeal quantum realms, is thusly different from Quantum Mechanics!

  42. As to what I am referring to with regard to spacetime and matter, I believe I quite thoroughly examined such 'realities' in my just previous message where I noted the quantum and Cosmic 'realities' of black and white holes!

  43. (Dr. Ruquist) I WILL FOLLOW THE WORK IN LQG AND ALSO THE CAHILL DARK MATTER WORK. IT SEEMS TO BE THE SAME THING BUT HAS NOT YET REALLY CONNECTED. I'LL KEEP YOU INFORMED OF ANY BREAKTHOUGHS. PLEASE KEEP WRITING ME AS THE SPIRIT MOVES YOU.

    Jerome

    (An additional email from Father Jerome)

    Richard

  44. Noticed something else in your last communication, to wit: "BUT NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT THE BASIC QUANTUM REALITY IS. WHAT YOU SEE MAY BE THE CLOSEST WE CAN GET TO REALITY."

  45. Hey, methinks that is what I have been saying all along... that the ONLY place one can 'see' the quantum 'realities' of the Incorporeal realms, is in the MIND! But, what I am also trying to say, as well as get the scientific community to accept, is that what is 'seen' in the human Mind, whether it comes from a viewpoint or 'perspective' that might be called the 'Mind of God' or from wherever, IS actually 'seen' WITHIN Incorporeality and IS, therefore, REAL! And the further point is, that Reality CANNOT BE 'observed', in the Incorporeal realms, but only 'seen', in the Mind!

  46. I know! Now you're going to say, "But what if that which is 'seen', in the Mind of each and every different human being, is also different?" Well, I don't know how you're going to work that out, Richard, except to say that WHEN one 'perceives' or 'sees' Incorporeality, they are actually 'viewing' any and all probabilities and possibilities, therefore EVERY differing 'view' that is 'seen' in different Minds, may just as well be REAL, but predicated upon THAT INDIVIDUAL's personal 'reality'! So, even though everyone might 'see' something different, ALL of that which is 'seen' could just as well be REAL!

    Jerome

    (Discussion thread continued in the next QUALIA Monograph.)

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome



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