Qualia XXIX: The BASICS (continued): Quantum Axion Particles, Math and more! From the QUFD website, at: http://go.to/QUFD
Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Qualia XXIX: The BASICS (continued): Quantum Axion Particles, Math and more!


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. Richard 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.

    (The following 'Conversations Between Physicists' continues from the preceding QUALIA Monograph.)

    On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:52:59 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

  1. Okay, Richard, some further 'musings' on your comments. You say you have a preference for the single-reality theories, where wave collapses into particle or vice versa. But let me ask you this: Surely you can agree that Life, as we live it and as it surrounds us, is full of many realities of all kinds.
    [The previous text is a repeat of the beginning of the last email message of the preceding QUALIA Monograph. The thread of these continuing 'Conversations' continues with the following message. Indication of who is talking at any point is included.)

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:29 PM
    Subject: Re: Fw: Dark Matter Musings

    Father Jerome,

  2. Last thinks first. I meant to say last things first.

  3. If Everett's many worlds, or equivalently, many reality, model of quantum mechanics is correct, then waves never need to collapse. All waves always exist. Chance just selects what waves will register on the experiment or the person. Yet in the end, after enough trials are registered, all possible worlds are registered. So all we need are sufficient statistics to attain one reality in common or the entire spectrum of possible realities for a given experiment..

  4. Same with humans. Say an event is perceived by millions of people. A very large number of people will perceive close to the same thing. That is a single reality in common with the majority of people. Some people will observe what the rest call hallucinations. That is their reality. But there is not enough of them to make their reality the in-common reality. You are in the class of experiencing uncommon realities. All infinity of the possible realities exist. But for the average person there is only one reality experienced by almost all people.

  5. So we can have it both ways. There are an infinite number of realities, but enough perceptions accumulated will manifest a more or less single reality. The single reality may be a unique thing, or like an interference pattern of the double slit experiment, it may reveal the total extent of the wave nature of all possible realties.

  6. Interesting that scientists can have it both ways in experiments. Still each person has his/her own separate reality. But the majority usually have more or less the same one in common.

  7. What we really need is a quantitative way to detect the incorporeal. Then science could measure everything. But even as it is, science comes very close to the truth with only corporeal maesurements. They just cannot prove it experimentally.

    Richard

    On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 23:23:32 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

    Richard

  8. Okay, I am trying to understand your viewpoint, or perspective (in fact, I even think I hear you saying that you are acknowledging the concept of many 'perspectives', of which you are trying to state yours!) and you may be 'getting through'!

  9. If I understand you correctly, in effect you are saying that what science is accomplishing, via it's many 'experiments', is the determination of a 'common reality', which is, actually, not the actual, individual, 'reality' of anyone, but is, instead, the overall picture of 'reality', which all of mankind experiences, or an amalgamation of everyone's 'realities'! Let me see, further! Can I say that such a 'common reality' is actually the 'blending together' of everyone's individual 'realities'?

  10. I don't know as I can say it that way, because that very 'methodology' seems to me to be but a mere 'sampling', of all 'realities', and then 'running the flag up the pole (as we used to say in the military), just to see if anyone would salute it'! Which means, in effect, that some 'authoritative source', determines something-to-be-as-that-'source'-would-like-it-to-be (perhaps!) OR 'creates' something, which may be 'sellable', to enough gullible and misunderstanding folks (the old snake-medicine man!), and places such a 'product' (that which is to be sold, or told!), on the 'flagpole' (i.e., puts it on the market, or publishes it, or tells it somehow!), and then sits back to see how many people, of the 'common man' (i.e., the 'general public'!), will actually buy the 'product' (which is determined by how many people 'salute' the 'flag', or buy the product!) In a way, I think I can see that as the true 'model', of scientific experimentation, with the results thereof arrived at by 'consensus' of the most important 'players'-in-the-game, who actually make the final 'determination', by 'committee', as to exactly what the 'single-reality' will be!

  11. Maybe I'm wrong, Richard, and science and scientists are not so 'money-grubbing', in their activities! I haven't as yet seen anything to 'prove', that what I am saying is either right or wrong, so as far as I'm concerned it is yet open! Also, this is getting into 'politics' here, with such 'inferences', and I don't know that I want to 'define' this one way or the other, because it would, in effect, be making a 'political judgement', which I do not wish to do!

  12. And I know that you have said that the actual 'mission' of science is to determine exactly what is 'right' (the Truth!) and what is 'wrong' (un-truth!), but, as my Essays on the QUFD website have stated, as I remember, Truth CANNOT BE FOUND anywhere within Corporeality, BUT ONLY within Incorporeality, or, as the great Philosopher, Mortimer J. Adler, has put it... "Truth is in the Mind!" And since the Mind is within Incorporeality, therefore Truth exists ONLY within the Mind, because all of Corporeality can, in any way possible, corrupt the Truth, and thusly it is not possible within Corporeality!

  13. Well, whatever, my Essays on the website state something like that! But, to get back to the immediate problem of multiple 'realities' versus a 'single-reality', perhaps, if we take a look around us, at our daily Lives, as well as 'remembering' all of our Life experiences that we can so do, I think, if I were the one doing so, I would come to a different conclusion, as to the 'definition' of the 'single-reality', that science says exists in our world!

  14. I would say that such a 'single', or common 'reality', WHATEVER IT MAY BE, and wherever it may be found, as well as under WHAT 'circumstances' such 'reality' should be found... is ALL DUE to the 'intersection', or conjunction', OR the SUM, of everyone's individual 'realities', ADDED TOGETHER, to 'create' the sum-total of a 'single-reality', AS SHOULD/SHALL EXIST AT THAT MOMENT OF TIME AND SPACE, AND AT THAT LOCATION!

  15. And that is the 'clue', right there, as to 'defining' Reality! Time and Space! Because such a 'single reality', CAN ONLY EXIST in Space-Time, OR within Corporeality! SO, if we want to say that there is but one single 'Reality'... Yes, it is true! BUT ONLY for Corporeality! NOT applicable to Incorporeality!

  16. And that brings us back again to 'perspectives'! Because, if science wants to 'confine' themselves, and their 'observations' (i.e., 'experiments'!), TO Corporeality, and a 'single-reality' model... Well, all is fine and good! BUT, such a 'perspective' DOES NOT 'fly', over the border in Incorporeality, where the very nature of the game IS multiple 'perspectives' AND multiple 'realities'! In fact, as long as science and scientists are thinking 'single-reality'... They are not even going to 'cross over the border'! They can't 'see' ANYTHING about Incorporeality, UNTIL they can 'see' the infinitudes of 'realities' and 'perspectives' that are the very 'name of the game' WITHIN Incorporeality!

  17. So, Sorry, Richard, but however you might 'define' a 'single-reality' model, it still leaves me thinking of Corporeality ONLY, and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'real' and Truthful 'Reality', because such a 'view' of the 'Big Picture' of Life REQUIRES one to 'see' the 'realities' of BOTH Corporeality AND Incorporeality! And right now, I've 'run out of steam' just thinking about it all! Bye!

    Jerome

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 5:22 AM
    Subject: Re: Fw: Dark Matter Musings

    Father Jerome,

  18. Let's consider the wave/particle duality of light and you can determine if it is in any way equivalent to the Incorporeal/Corporeal theory of condensates.

  19. Wave/particle duality theory contains many realities.

  20. The double slit experiment is most instructive.

  21. In this experiment light shines on a screen with two long parallel slits.

  22. A detector screen is located behind the screen with two slits.

  23. The detector screen can only detect photons(particles). Every time a photon comes through the slits, the detector detects the photon at a different location. Therefore for each separate photon, the detector has a different reality as to how the photon came through the double slit screen. In this case the separate realities are corporeal.

  24. Now we can actually solve the wave picture rigorously. It turns out that there is only one reality for the wave-like solution. Two sets of waves emanate from the slits and they interfere before hitting the detector screen, producing a well known interference pattern on the screen that is invisible, because it is incorporeal.

  25. The detection process is corporeal, and as stated above, one photon is detected at a time at one location. But if we detect enough photons, an interference pattern emerges from the sum of all the detections.

  26. In this way, science can measure the totality of the wave interference structure. It can measure all possible realities of the photons which are corporeal because we theoretically know the single wave-like, incorporeal reality from solution of Maxwell's equations. At a fundamental level, a single reality emerges from nature which is incorporeal. If you go deeper, like to the Planck level, multiple realities are found. And if you go to a higher level, the level of organisms and human life, multiple realities, incorporeal realities emerge. But at some intermediate atomic level, incorporeal wave-like nature is a single reality.

    Gotta go. My fiance says so.
    Richard

    On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:37:56 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

  27. Hey, Richard! Glad to hear that you again have an 'authority', telling you that "We gotta GO!" Wish I did!

  28. Okay, to your 'musings'! I can tentatively agree, but I can 'see' beyond those 'experiments' that you mention, and which I am already most familiar with (including Alain... What was his name? At CERN!... and his photon 'experiments'!)

  29. You say:
    [Richard] "In this way, science can measure the totality of the wave interference structure. It can measure all possible realities of the photons which are corporeal because we theoretically know the single wave-like, incorporeal reality from solution of Maxwell's equations. At a fundamental level, a single reality emerges from nature which is incorporeal. If you go deeper, like to the Planck level, multiple realities are found. And if you go to a higher level, the level of organisms and human life, multiple realities, incorporeal realities emerge. But at some intermediate atomic level, incorporeal wave-like nature is a single reality"
  30. [Jerome] Which, from one (or more!) 'perspectives', I can agree with, but I feel that such 'knowing', as derived from such 'experients', is not only limited, but is also LIMITING, or 'restrictive', of the 'knowing' of more-broader 'perspectives' and 'realities'! (And Pardon Me, but I seem to vaguely remember, in my 'Collective Consciousness' memory, NOT my lower-mind 'conscious-memory', having made the same 'rebuke' or argument, in 1967, to the gentleman with whom I was discussing quantum physics at a dinner party in Redwood City, California, who was, incidentally, the Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)!) Let me present my 'perspectives'.

  31. [Richard] "...science can measure the totality of the wave interference structure."

  32. [Jerome] Well, from my 'perspective', no way does such come close to measuring the 'totality' of possible/probable waves that exist within Incorporeality. But, true, it is 'measuring' a SINGLE 'reality'! What it is doing is 'observing' (and such 'observation' CAN ONLY BE DONE within Corporeality, NOT within Incorporeality, wherefrom such waves originate!), the two corporeal 'representations' (interferometry) OF the actual Incorporeal waves (but NOT the waves themselves!), which are contributing to (producing) the particle thusly 'observed' or detected! This corresponds exactly with my essay-lectures (including lecture4.html), which detail such wave-particle 'collapse', as one 'wave' (reality) from the Past (within the zero-gravity atemporal unitary-structure of Incorporeality), and one 'wave' (reality) from the Future (again, within the Incorporeal condensate), both of which 'wave-realities' HAVE BEEN SELECTED BY the specific 'Present' (space-time), which has been selected-observed, by the 'experiment'! So, Yes, we have dealt here with 3 'realities', 2 of which 'came from' Incorporeality (the Past wave, and the Future wave, OF the Present which has been observed!), and that actual 'Present' (particle-reality) which was 'observed'! NOTE: Any 'Present' space-time particle has, in and of its 'creation' FROM Incorporeality, inherently those two 'realities', one from the Past and one from the Future, which allow that 'Present' to so be 'created'! Also, two of these 'realities' are originating in the atemporality-aspaciality (non-spacetime) of Incorporeality, and are leading to the 'creation' OF the new 'Life-form' so being 'created' IN Corporeality (the 'Present'), the particle that is 'observed'! So, here we have quantum axion 'particles' (which, in effect, are 'waves', in that axion 'particles'-waves CAN ONLY EXIST within Incorporeality), thusly fulfilling their duty (and function!) of 'creating' space-time (corporeality) and then, within the corporeal space-time so created, they then manifest (create), the Present 'sum' OF those two 'realities' contained within (OR therewith!) those two axion 'waves', from Past and Future, which are 'creating' the Present-particle of space-time corporeality which is actually being detected-'observed'! So this is no more than 3 'realities', of one single Past-Present-Future! Certainly NOT the 'totality' of ALL possibilities/probabilities inherent within Incorporeality!

  33. [Richard] "It can measure all possible realities of the photons which are corporeal because we theoretically know the single wave-like, incorporeal reality from solution of Maxwell's equations."

  34. [Jerome] Okay, let's examine this, from Incorporeal 'perspectives'! (And, although I certainly 'know' of Maxwell, I am in no way an 'expert' in his 'math'!) (Incidentally, wasn't he the 'Founder', or discoverer, of the electric and magnetic quantum 'forces', and thusly the entire telecommunications industry, or am I vaguely remembering someone else?) If so, of course, you realize that those two quantum 'forces', electric and magnetic are, of course, corporeal ONLY, and NOT incorporeal, as all quantum forces/fields are unitary within Incorporeality! Thusly, any math and 'equations', as he might have derived from such 'discoveries', MIGHT ONLY pertain TO corporeality, and the quantum forces/fields thereof (as exist ONLY within Corporeality!), and NOT to Incorporeality, and the unitary-structure(s) thereof!

  35. Anyway, let's continue here. First of all, Yes, photons are corporeal, but, as I have just previously pointed out, in no way are we 'measuring ALL possible realities', but we are, in actuality, only 'measuring' 3 distinct 'realities', the Past, the Present and the Future, of any individual photon! (Now, perhaps you may wish to advance a specific 'counter-argument' here, which MAY have some 'plausibility'! Such being that, in actuality, those individual 'reality-waves', from the Past and the Future, while being but one each 'wave', or 'reality', from one 'perspective', ARE, from another 'perspective', the SUM-TOTAL of ALL 'realities', that have so led to the 'creation' OF each one of those 'reality-waves', Past or Future! But then, you would have to say that, from a multiple-perspectives 'viewpoint', the 'observation', in the Present (Corporeality), is actually 'creating' (selecting), a specific 'reality' from the Past, but also that that single-reality of the Past, has also 'come-into-existence' as the SUM-TOTAL of multiple-realities OF the Past, which are likewise, in turn, being 'selected' BY our Present 'observation'! And in the same manner, we would then have to apply the same 'logic' to our Future 'reality-wave', which is also being 'created-selected' here in the corporeal Present! By this 'argument', therefore, our 'observation', in the Present, of the Present-Corporeality of space-time so 'created-observed', IS, in effect, WITHIN the Incorporeal condensate of unity-structure, IN TURN 'creating', or selecting, not only the single-reality IN THE PAST, which has contributed to the 'creation' of our Present space-time, BUT ALSO any number of MULTIPLE REALITIES in the PAST, which have in turn been 'selected', FROM the PRESENT, to contribute TO that single PAST 'reality'! Again, the same 'argument' and logic apply to our FUTURE single-reality!)

  36. The point so being, that ANY single-reality, as 'observed' and 'created', within Corporeality (the Present!), HAS almost infinitudes of 'realities', in the Past and the Future (the Present is corporeal!)... WHEN you 'step over that fence', INTO the realms of Incorporeality! So, what I said about 'experiments' and their results being 'limited' and 'limiting', MEANS that, the interferometric-pattern, of incorporeal 'waves', IS but one 'reality', 'observed' HERE in Corporeality, and NOT the 'totality' of all 'realities' which have 'contributed' TO that Present 'observation'! Thus the 'results' are limited. But, as long as scientists THINK such is the 'totality', WHEN IT IS NOT, such 'experiments' are also 'limiting', or holding them back, FROM actually 'stepping-over-the-fense', and SEEING, in their own Minds (NOT 'observing', IN Corporeality, ANYTHING THAT CAN BE 'proven', or repeated, physically/materially, EXCEPT IN THE MIND!) They will NOT be able to 'see', those infinitudes, of 'realities' OR 'perspectives', that 'hold sway' within Incorporeality!

  37. So, once again, in NO way, can Maxwell's 'equations', have 'defined', in anyform, the actual nature and 'reality', of Incorporeality! One has to 'step-over-the-fence', into the MIND, into Consciousness (which is what your 'Dark Matter/Energy' IS, of infinitudes of condensates of Consciousness, pervading the Cosmos!), in order to 'see' such infinitudes of 'realities' AND the 'perspectives' thereof, WHICH ALL contribute TO, those final two quantum axion 'waves', of the Past and Future (and all the possible/probable 'realities' inherent therein!), which 'collapse' (are 'observed'!) INTO the Present corporeal-reality that is 'created', in corporeal space-time!

  38. [Richard] "At a fundamental level, a single reality emerges from nature which is incorporeal."

  39. [Jerome] Incorrect again, because, using your 'experiments' within Corporeality, any single-reality so emerging is merely corporeal and in no way can 'define' the infinitudes of 'realities' inherent in Incorporeality! True, Incorporeality IS the 'fundamental level'! But no one is going to 'see' it UNTIL they 'hop-over-the-fence', and begin to explore Incorporeality, IN THEIR MINDS! Now, also true, scientists can write about what they 'see', IN THEIR MINDS, but, in no way (known to this present civilization!), will Science be able to 'conduct experiements' WITHIN Incorporeality! (However, there is another 'perspective', as well as possibilities/probabilities, for 'experimentation'! I will only say that, 'experimentation WITHIN Incorporeality', IS POSSIBLE, and may already have been done! The 'knowing', or 'records', of such, MIGHT be found, IN THE COLLECTIVE! In the Collective Consciousness, of all of humanity, Past, Present and Future! BUT, in order to 'access' the Collective, via one's Soul, one must GO INTO THE MIND, into Consciousness, in order to 'access' the Collective! When scientists begin to do that, perhaps THEN 'experimentation WITHIN Incorporeality' will be re-discovered!)

  40. [Richard] "If you go deeper, like to the Planck level, multiple realities are found."

  41. [Jerome] Yes, and No! Again, it depends on which side of the fence you are 'looking' from, the Corporeal side or the Incorporeal side! (And remember, Corporeality IS 'Differentiated Relativity', while Incorporeality IS 'UNdifferentiated Relativity'!) So, the Planck Scale ONLY exists 'relative' TO Corporeality (throughout the entire Universe!), or 'Differentiated Relativity'... say, the distinct, differentiated relativity, of an astrophysical pulsar, which is a corporeal Life-form, on the QUFD Scale of Life! However, the Planck Scale does NOT exist 'relative' TO, the Incorporeal 'side-of-the-fence', from which our pulsar has been created! The Planck Scale, and the extreme temperature ranges thereof, DOES NOT EXIST within Incorporeality, because the unitary-nature of the Condensate of Consciousness, HAS NO TEMPERATURE! Consciousness is ATEMPERATURAL, INTEMPERATURAL, as well as being atemporal/intemporal! Consciousness has NO space-time (except that which is 'created' BY the quantum axion particles/waves of Consciousness!), and therefore, within Consciousness, within Incorporeality, within 'Dark Matter/Energy', THERE IS NO TEMPERATURE, and thusly the Planck Scale CANNOT apply! Also, since space-time does not exist, in the basic condensate of Incorporeality/Consciousness/Dark Matter-Energy, we also have another thing that does not exist (as per QUFD principles!), and that is DENSITY! Density and temperature are corporeal, and can only exist within Corporeality! Of course, from a multiple-perspectives, infinite-realities, viewpoint, of the 'Big Picture', there are infinitudes of condensates WITHIN Incorporeality, and every condensate contains space-time, corporeality, temperature, density and the Planck Scale, within EVERY one of those condensates, as well as BETWEEN condensates, in the 'temporary' space-times, that are 'created' by the quantum axion particles/waves, to 'communicate' between condensates! So, in effect, the Plank Scale DOES EXIST within Incorporeality, but ONLY within those condensates of space-time Corporeality that exist within Incorporeality! BUT, one would have to be using multiple 'perspectives' to 'see' this, AND from WITHIN Incorporeality! So those scientists who use the Plank Scale, only see space-time and temperature-density 'realities', of our pulsar! They CANNOT, and will not, 'see' the condensates, and the infinitudes of 'realities', of Past/Present/Future, which are contributing to the 'creation', OF that pulsar, IN THE PRESENT space-time of Corporeality! The Plank Scale does NOT apply, on the Incorporeal 'side-of-the-fence', to 'UNdifferentiated relativity', to non-distinct, non-differentiated, entities and Life-forms, such as our pulsar, which IS, however, on the QUFD Scale of Life!

  42. As to "if you go deeper, multiple realities are found"... most certainly true! Such is the most basic nature of Incorporeality! BUT, those 'multiple realities' are NOT found at the Planck-level, because the Planck Scale does NOT EXIST within Incorporeality! The Planck Scale can ONLY address those 'realities' which are 'created' FROM Incorporeality, within Corporeality, where space-time, temperature and density DO EXIST!

  43. [Richard] "And if you go to a higher level, the level of organisms and human life, multiple realities, incorporeal realities emerge."

  44. [Jerome] I think you really meant "corporeal realities emerge", rather than incorporeal realities. Which is also true, when one's 'perspectives' can 'view' not only the condensates of Incorporeality, but also the 'realities' OF those condensates, from WITHIN such condensates of Corporeality!

  45. [Richard] "But at some intermediate atomic level, incorporeal wave-like nature is a single reality"

  46. [Jerome] Again, Yes and No! It depends on one's 'perspective'! Within condensates of Corporeality, there are infinitudes of 'realities', all 'boiling' together (self-ordering), and doing the 'Dance-of-Life', as such 'Life' should exist within any condensate, dealing with all the 'realities' that are so 'created' WITHIN that Life-form condensate, whether that condensate is a human being, human society, or our world, or a pulsar! And within Incorporeality, from any one 'perspective', there are yet and again, infinitudes of 'realities', and condensates! But, in order to 'see' such 'realities', WITHIN Incorporeality, within Consciousness, within Dark Matter/Energy... ONE HAS TO GO INTO THE MIND, into Consciousness, because that "intermediate atomic level" DOES NOT EXIST within Incorporeality! Atoms are physical/material/corporeal, space-time entities, NOT OF THE Incorporeal 'worlds' of Consciousness and Dark Matter/Energy! You CANNOT find atoms, molecules, leptons, bosons, fermions, space-time, temperature and density, WITHIN Dark Matter/Energy! They don't exist! What DOES EXIST, is quantum axion particles/waves of Consciousness!

  47. I quit!

    Jerome

    (A further email from Jerome)

    Richard

  48. Okay, apparently I forgot something very important, in my last email, because I was just awakened to tell you this.

  49. Regarding your wave/particle duality... Okay, everything I previously said, regarding wave/particle 'collapse', is yet true, but I need to tell you that I was talking primarily from my favorite side of the 'fence', from the 'perspective' of Incorporeality, and so the wave/particle 'realities' I was discussing were in reference to quantum axion particles/waves of Incorporeality!

  50. Okay, let's 'take into account' another 'perspective', that of YOUR favorite 'perspective', from Corporeality! Now, granted that all of your quantum 'particles' and such (as I have already discussed!), from molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, bosons, leptons, fermions, quarks and so on (AND the temperatures, densities, masses, fields, forces, thereof!), ARE CORPOREAL, and NOT Incorporeal! However, here we have to 'view' these 'particles' FROM at least two different 'perspectives', again!

  51. First of all, Corporeality is a condensate, that 'exists' WITHIN Incorporeality, and at the very least, the Incorporeality of the largest condensate of all, Infinite Consciousness (God). Of course, any condensate can also be likewise existing (extant) within any number of other condensates, all of which that single condensate is 'related to', in some way! (A human being condensate exists within the condensate of his/her 'race', which exists within the condensate of this world, and so on!)

  52. Okay, further, so all of the quantum 'particles', OF CORPOREALITY, which I mentioned above, DO HAVE both wave and particle 'realities', or possibilities/probabilities, just like the quantum axion particles that I mentioned previously! But think of this: quantum axion particles and waves, ARE ALWAYS found ONLY within Incorporeality! Your Corporeal quantum 'particles' ARE ALWAYS found ONLY within Corporeality! HOWEVER, also realize this: ANY condensate of Corporeality, IS ALWAYS contained within a larger condensate (or condensates!) OF Incorporeality! THEREFORE, we can make the following rule/principle: when a quantum 'particle', of Corporeality, is extant and 'acting' WITHIN the Corporeality OF its own 'home' condensate, it exists in the 'collapsed' form of a 'particle'! However, since that very condensate of Corporeality is ALSO existing within a larger condensate of a very different 'Corporeality', ANYTHING withOUT, or OUTSIDE OF that original (smaller!) condensate, is INCORPOREALITY, as far as the smaller condensate is concerned, EVEN THOUGH the next larger condensate, which the smaller condensate is contained within, is ALSO of a 'Corporeal' nature! However, since the larger condensate is 'self-ordered' relative TO a different 'Corporeality' than the smaller condensate, THEREFORE ALL the quantum 'particles' (of corporeality!) OF the smaller condensate, do actually 'see' anything OUTSIDE OF that condensate AS Incorporeality! Thusly, such corporeal quantum 'particles', acting WITHIN that 'home condensate', are 'particles', but when they are 'acting' OUTSIDE (external) OF that 'home condensate', they are, in effect, quantum 'waves', OF the Incorporeality OF the next larger condensate AT LEAST, and ALWAYS the Incorporeality OF the Ultimate Condensate of all, Infinite Consciousness (God)! So, corporeal quantum 'particles' CAN HAVE their 'wave' equivalents, BUT ONLY IN the Incorporeality EXTERNAL OF their 'home condensate'!

  53. Now, I previously mentioned that quantum axion particles of Incorporeality are ALWAYS extant WITHIN Incorporeality! But, they ALSO have the function of 'creating' space-time (or corporeality!), temporarily, EXTERNAL OF/TO any condensate of corporeality! Therefore, we can also say that NOMINALLY, within Incorporeality, any quantum axion 'particle' IS ACTUALLY, most of the time, a WAVE, rather than a 'particle'! (And ALL 'actions', taking place in Incorporeality, are 'wave' actions, OF quantum axion particles!) BUT, WHEN a quantum axion 'particle' is actually 'creating' corporeal space-time, WITHIN that corporeal space-time so 'created', IT IS ACTING LIKE A PARTICLE, primarily, EVEN THOUGH it is yet existing in the Incorporeality BETWEEN corporeal condensates, OR external to, those condensates! (And, NO!, even though a quantum axion 'particle' may be acting like a 'particle' within the space-time that it 'creates', IT DOES NOT EXIST WITHIN that corporeal space-time, but is yet extant ONLY in the Incorporeality between those corporeal condensates! Also, the reason that it is 'acting like a particle' within the 'created' space-time, is that by doing so, it is actually also 'creating' the individual quantum forces and fields, within that 'created' space-time, which are necessary in order to 'communicate' whatever is to be 'communicated' between those two condensates of corporeality!)

  54. Okay, now I need to 'throw a kink' in the situation. Because, again, we have at least two 'perspectives'! I have been talking about condensates of Corporeality, wherein each condensate is some form (a Life-form, or Life-forms!) of Corporeality, as that condensate has so been 'created' FROM Incorporeality AND/OR a next larger condensate of Corporeality! (Such as, an Iraqi human being condensate of Corporeality, is part of the larger condensate of Corporeality of the Iraqi nation, and is also part of the much larger condensate of Corporeality which is this world, which is part of the larger yet condensate of Corporeality which is our Universe, which, however, is also part of the Ultimate Condensate of INCORPOREALITY which is God, or Infinite Consciousness! And yet ALL of these condensates of Corporeality ARE INCORPOREAL, because they are contained within that Ultimate Condensate, Infinite Consciousness! In other words, Corporeality 'manifests' WITHIN Incorporeality! Such is the very nature of EVERYTHING, in that all that is Corporeal, or physical/material, is also 'pervaded' BY the very Incorporeality from which such Corporeality has been 'created'! As a further example, this world, Earth, is a Corporeal condensate! And yet many forces/fields, including numerous ionic fields, AND THE UNITARY forces/fields OF Consciousness, OF Incorporeality, OF Dark Matter/Energy, easily 'penetrate' or pervade, right though the 'corporeality' OF the planet, BECAUSE they are OF Incorporeality, NOT Corporeality!)

  55. Okay, however, here is the 'kink'! THERE ARE, also, condensates that exist entirely WITHIN Incorporeality, which are NOT condensates of Corporeality, but are condensates of Incorporeality ONLY! Remember, on the QUFD Scale of Life, anytime that a larger condensate 'gives birth' TO a 'Life-form', it is 'creating' a condensate of Corporeality! However, condensates of Incorporeality CAN INTERACT with other condensates of Incorporeality, WITHOUT 'giving birth' to a 'Life-form'! In such cases, the 'results', or 'outputs', from one condensate of incorporeality to another condensate of incorporeality ARE merely 'communications', which I have mentioned previously! BUT, some of the most important condensates of Incorporeality are condensates that are 'associated' WITH condensates of CORPOREALITY! (There ARE condensates of Incorporeality that are ONLY 'associated' with other condensates of Incorporeality!)

  56. In fact, our most important two condensates of Incorporeality ARE THE HUMAN MIND! The individual local Mind, of every human being, is composed of two separate condensates of Incorporeality, both of which are 'associated' WITH the human brain and body, which is a condensate of Corporeality! However, those two Incorporeal condensates, the Upper Mind and the lower mind, are what control and supervise EVERY ASPECT OF that 'associated' condensate of Corporeality, the brain and body! (All of which I have already discussed extensively in the existing webpages of the QUFD 'Textbook'!)

  57. SO, Richard, can you now 'distinguish', as to what is a condensate of Corporeality versus what is a condensate of Incorporeality, and yet realize that EVERYTHING (ALL condensates!), are extant WITHIN the Ultimate Condensate of Incorporeality, of Consciousness, of 'Dark Matter/Energy', which pervades the entire Cosmos?

  58. Actually, one thing more! NOT ALL condensates of Corporeality are 'Life-forms' (having Consciousness). But all condensates are 'self-ordered' around the 'reason' for their existence, whatever such may be! In the example that I gave above, the human being condensate IS a 'Life-form', as is also a pulsar condensate a 'Life-form'! But, the condensate of Corporeality of the Iraqi people/nation, although containing human being 'Life-forms', is merely a condensate of Corporeality which is 'self-ordered' around the Iraqi 'nation', which is, however, also a 'Life-form' having Consciousness WITHIN ITSELF (that condensate)! Also, from the 'perspective' of Incorporeality, BOTH condensates DO HAVE Consciousness, and are a 'Life-form'! So, defining these condensates becomes a bit 'tricky', and one has to be 'aware' of 'perspectives' again, especially when there can be Consciousness/Incorporeality (and your Dark Matter/Energy!) WITHIN a condensate of Corporeality (because Incorporeality is EVERYWHERE!), OR the Consciousness is WITHOUT (outside!) of a condensate of Corporeality (as is the human Mind!)

  59. Now I quit!

    Jerome

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 6:34 PM
    Subject: Re: Fw: Dark Matter Musings

    Father Jerome,

  60. I was with you up to this point:
  61. [Jerome] "all quantum forces/fields are unitary within Incorporeality! Thusly, any math and 'equations', as he might have derived from such 'discoveries', MIGHT ONLY pertain TO corporeality"
  62. [Richard] You seem to be saying that math can only be corporeal. If so I am quite disappointed. If we cannot describe the incorporeal with math, there is absolutely no hope that we can ever understand it scientifically. So if so, you should stop complaining about scientists being limited. Without math they, and I, have no hope. Why did you not tell us about this long ago?

    Richard

    (Father Jerome replies)

    Richard

  63. I have mentioned this subject previously! I have said that scientists need to 'step over the fence', and to 'see' Incorporeality in all its 'realities'! THEN, possibly, they will be able to 'come up with' the MATH to describe all the 'realities' and 'dynamics' of Incorporeality! Until they can 'see' Incorporeality, and thusly 'describe' it mathematically (but they may NEVER 'observe' it!), all existing math has ONLY to do with Corporeality! That is where Einstein was at a loss, as to 'describing' the unitary nature of Incorporeality, because even he couldn't come up with math and suitable equations that described 'the other side of the fence'! I have tried to 'define' everything that I talk about as to Incorporeality from a PHILOSOPHICAL 'basis', because there is NO Mathematical 'basis' extant as yet to define Consciousness! (And I've said so, on the webpages of the QUFD "Textbook'!) Science CANNOT 'squeeze' Consciousness into Corporeality, because... You are right! The Math to do so, does NOT EXIST! I have said such already, but maybe not often enough, as I usually don't talk about the math at all, because what exists DOES NOT APPLY to Consciousness! If Einstein couldn't do it, that means it yet does not exist! Of course, maybe you or someone, some day, WILL find the Math to adequately describe 'the other side of the fence'! I have also tried to give some 'impetus' TO Mathematicians to 'find' the suitable math and equations to describe Incorporeality, by several times philosophically stating (as I did so to you one time, as our email 'conversations' do record!) some words to the effect, "Why cannot Math 'cross over the line' and come up with equations that go beyond the 'infinite' (in Math!), in order to describe a 'negative world' (NOT referring to electrical 'polarity' OR the Negativity of Lucifer!) of negative mathematical equations, which is entirely opposite of all the 'positive' equations that exist today! Here, of course, not being an expert in Math, I was using the terms 'negative' and 'positive' in a relative sense, as I also constantly do, in trying to describe Corporeality and Incorporeality as existing on 'opposite sides of a fence'! Such is why I keep saying that scientists are NOT going to 'see' Incorporeality (OR the Math associated therewith!) UNTIL they can 'hop over the fence' and 'see' what is really going on, WITHIN Incorporeality, and NOT from Corporeality!

  64. Sorry, Richard! I thought you were 'in tune' with this! I have no 'remedy', no solution, other than what I have been already doing, which is trying to describe Incorporeality philosophically!

    Jerome

    (A further email from Father Jerome)

    Richard

  65. Okay, now you got me going, Richard! I went to bed, after I answered your last email, but the Guy Upstairs told me that I had more to say! So, I had to get up and turn my computer on again. But, when I tried to log-in to my Earthlink connection, I got Lucifer instead, telling me via an error message, that Earthlink 'does not recognize your password'! Well, I got on my phone and called Earthlink Customer Service, but while I was waiting and listening to all their phone 'select' options and 'hints' on what to do about certain problems, my focus (or the Guy Upstairs!) hit on one 'tip' they gave... "Turn your computer off and try it again!" So I did that, and Lo and Behold, it worked! I could connect!

  66. Okay, Richard, it is now 3AM in the morning! I don't know what I am going to say, but here it is!

  67. Okay, as to the Math, as I said, I am no expert, but I have a certain sense about Math! So, let's start over, here, in considering Math, because I seem to feel that it should be possible to describe Incorporeality!

  68. Now, answer me this! Does not Math have the ability to describe most anything in this world that can be corporeally defined, i.e., see, feel, hear, touch, smell, etc., or even to materially/physically 'conceptualize'??? In other words, a building or the Earth itself, can be mathematically described??? (Incidentally, what happened, as I heard a long time back, that mathematicians (or physicists?) had already come up with the formulaes to describe BOTH God and Lucifer??? If they can do that, i.e., describe God, why can't they 'describe' Incorporeality, which is the same thing???)

  69. Okay, assuming that Math can describe the physical/material/corporeal planet Earth, as some kind of mathematical 'solid' (and I don't think I mean a geometric 'solid'!), a spherical 'solid' (almost, but not really, I understand!)... IF that math can describe such a Corporeal 'object'... NOW, assuming THE EXACT SAME OBJECT (the planet Earth!), but instead we are going to use Math to describe a NON-OBJECT, or NO OBJECT, in exactly the same location as the 'object', but we are now trying to define the 'invisibility' OF CONSCIOUSNESS, of the Unitary-forces/fields-nature of Incorporeality! In other words, THE ENTIRE OPPOSITE of Corporeality! If one math formula can describe the corporeal 'presence' of the planet Earth, is there NOT some other math formula that can describe the ABSENCE of the planet Earth??? BOTH in the very same point-location of space-time!

  70. Of course, I realize that Corporeality, and the mathematics of corporeality, relate to 'space-time'! Is there NOT some way to describe, mathematically, from the 'other side of the fence', the very concept of NO 'space-time'??? Until math can do that BASIC 'function', it will not be able to describe the infinitudes of 'realities' that lie there, on the 'other side of the fence'!
    BUT, Richard! I thought THAT was the very purpose OF Mathematics... TO DESCRIBE REALITY! The world and all its peoples, and their experiences, is NOT a single-reality! It is infinitudes of 'realities', ALL Corporeal! But now, we need to take that Math, which assumedly CAN DESCRIBE such Corporeal INFINITIES... and 'hop over the fence', from 'positive' infinities of reality, TO 'negative' infinities of realities! Can it be done??? I'm just a philosopher, Richard, so I can't answer these questions. Can you?

    Jerome

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:14:48 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

    Richard

  71. Okay, I'm going to combine your last three responses here and respond to issues therein piecemeal, and then maybe I can come up with an overall analysis.

    Father Jerome,

  72. [Richard] Anyway-einstein-was-not-a-mathematician.-He-even-needed-someone-else-to-solve-his-equations-for-him,-So-do-not-expect-that-if-einstein-could-not-do-it-nobody-can.

  73. [Jerome] Yeah, I remember that he couldn't even do his income taxes. No, I didn't say no one could do it, just because Einstein didn't! I've been waiting for some modern-day mathematician-physicist, to come up with this needed math. I don't talk about math much because, as far as I know, it applies only to the Corporeal and not the Incorporeal!

  74. [Richard]Shiftless.too.-Oops.Got-my-caps-back.-There-might-be-hope-for-spacer-and-space-time-after-all.-God-works-very-directly-at-times.

    Richard

    (Second of several emails from Richard)

    Father Jerome,

  75. [Richard] Seems you are backing off a bit, but a very small bit. In the last Email I responded to, you essentially said that math does not work for the incorporeal. You also said that Maxwell's equations only work for the corporeal, even though they predict the behavior of invisible waves.

  76. [Jerome] If Maxwell's equations say anything about 'waves', at least that is a start, because ALL waves are Incorporeal, even when they exist within a condensate of Corporeality (where they are still invisible)! And when I say that is a 'start', I am referring to the 'challenge' that I laid out in my previous email, wherein I said that if math can describe the planet Earth, as the condensate of solid Corporeality that it is, then surely someone can come up with the math to describe the invisible fields and forces of the Cosmos, including the zero-gravity unitary-nature of Incorporeality/Consciousness/Dark Matter/Energy and Undifferentiated Relativity (AND Spirit, sometimes called the 'Holy Spirit', or God!), that invisibly 'penetrates' our planet Earth and everything that is a corporeal part thereof, because the Earth's very corporeality has thusly been 'created ' from that invisibility, that Incorporeality!!

  77. [Richard] Now you say something consistent, that there is no space-time in the incorporeal, so no possibility of using math.

  78. [Jerome] NOT as yet! Yes, I'm still awaiting the math for Incorporeality!

  79. [Richard] The backing-off is you asking me what math can do. I have to agree with you: no spacetime, no math. I had thought I had found a connection in the physics of wave/particle duality to your elusive incorporeality. But when you say that invisible waves are corporeal, I threw up my hands.

  80. [Jerome] IF I ever said that "waves are corporeal", it was ONLY in the context of the 'perspective', such as my just previous herewith example, where I used the CONTEXT of invisible waves (of Incorporeality!), existing within the Corporeality of the Earth! As I said, waves are ALWAYS Incorporeal!

  81. [Richard] It would follow that all wave functions are incorporeal, especially since they predict behavior in space/time.

  82. [Jerome] WHOA, here! Yes, waves, and wave functions (although that is the math term, and math is corporeal!), are incorporeal! But waves 'describe' incorporeal 'reality', NOT corporeal space-time 'reality'! Whether mathematical wave 'functions', coming from incorporeality (from one perspective, but from another perspective, they are 'math', and therefore 'come from' corporeality!), can 'describe' or predict space-time, or corporeality. I don't know! BUT, on the other hand, I DO 'know' (philosophically AND actually!), that Incorporeality begets, or 'creates', space-time or Corporeality! So, whether we have a valid 'prediction' here, of incorporeal wave function (NOT referring to math 'functionality', but instead referring to the functional 'dynamics' or activities OF Incorporeality, and of what these waves actually DO within Incorporeality!), using corporeal math 'functions'. I don't know!

  83. [Richard] Now light, since it has a velocity c, from special relativity, does not experience time.

  84. [Jerome] Okay, this is a perfect example, of what I am trying to get across here! That there are, in the Cosmos, two basic 'realities', but that they exist on 'opposite sides of the fence'! First of all, let's further 'clarify' our understanding of the proverbial 'fence' that I keep referring to! What I mean, is that everything on one side of the fence, is observable (and incidentally, herein I am going to try to not use 'quotes' as much as I usually would, to EITHER emphasize OR de-emphasize, a word or meaning, because, perhaps, it may be contributing to the confusion, when the reader is being asked, by the use of 'quotes', to determine for oneself, the reader, whether the writer is implying that the 'quoted' word or phrase is to be emphasized OR de-emphasized, or whether it is 'true' or 'false') and corporeal, and differentiated, whereas, on the other side of the fence, everything is non-observable, invisible, incorporeal, and undifferentiated!

  85. And I am also using the principles of relativity, herein this philosophical discussion, to try to distinguish between two different worlds, one of which consists of any and everything that can be observed as separate and differentiated objects/entities, and a second world, in which nothing can be separated or observed, and is nominally invisible, except via the view/perspective from within one's Mind!

  86. Those are the two basic realities: corporeality and incorporeality! And since incorporeality begets corporeality, incorporeality is ALWAYS present, and a part of, corporeality! So, both sides of the fence, the visible and the invisible, can always be present, at the exact same point-location, of both space-time AND non-space-time!

  87. But, back to light! If the fence is the dividing point here, we can say that a photon emerges, or is observed, as the corporeal particle that is produced when the wave collapses. (Actually, in this case, it also takes more than a collapse, to produce the corporeal photon particle. It takes the detector, the equipment, or the human eye nerve, which is the fence, to produce (create) the corporeal photon, which then exists in not only space-time but also real-time! BUT, until that photon particle 'hopped the fence' and became a corporeal particle, it was part and parcel OF Incorporeality, as a wave, or, actually, waves, from the Past and the Future, that produced that photon in the Present, when it was observed! But that side of the fence, is unitary, of all the quantum forces and fields and gravity, so space, time, temperature, density, mass, charge, and more, exist there in a unitary condensate, where the laws and principles for unitary condensates rule (i.e., coherence, self-ordering, decision-making, adaptability, simplicity, complexity, order, chaos, non-locality!) But also, not only is that side of the fence unitary and of a condensate, but there many be infinitudes of condensates, of realities, extant there, on that side of the fence. We 'know' of at least two realities (and I am 'quoting' the word 'know', to imply that we see and know such in the MIND, not in physical, observable, knowing!), which have produced our light photon here in the Present, those two realities being both the waves from the Past and the Future, which have created our Present photon!

  88. Now, one more thought, however! Perhaps we can say (as I have said many times already!), that incorporeality 'gives birth' to corporeality! In other words, instead of the two waves of incorporeality (from Past and Future!) 'collapsing' into a corporeal photon, MAYBE those waves are yet there, possibly 'traveling-on' (if it might be said as such!), there on that other side of the fence, and have merely, and instantaneously, 'given birth' , to the photon which has been observed! Maybe the photon was NOT the result of a 'collapse' of those waves, but maybe those waves yet exist, there on that side of the fence!

  89. Anyway, whichever it might be, those incorporeal waves, in the non-local unity of the incorporeal condensate, might have originated billions of years in the Past (the Past wave), AND, as to the wave from the Future, had whatever undifferentiated relativity that such an 'incident' as our observation-of-the-photon-here-in-the-Present has so 'created', IN THE FUTURE, relative TO that specific wave from the Past which was observed! So, both the Past wave and the Future wave, were actually selected/observed and 'created', from all possible/probable realities (of the infinitudes of realities present, there on that side of the fence!), when our eyes 'saw' that photon of light, here in the Present! Such is the reality of such opposite sides of the fence!

  90. [Richard] The time for a wave of light is the same when it starts as when it ends. The light we see from galaxies billions of light years away from us, which was emitted billions of years ago, is still at its time of emission. That light is billions of years younger than us. Light does not grow old. It always exists at the same time. So perhaps that is what you mean by no space-time, but most likely not, as the light still has a velocity and at least to me, seems to be very corporeal.

  91. [Jerome] Everything you say is true, in defining the unitary nature of Incorporeality, until you get to the end of your statement! True, the light photon originated billions of years ago, BUT, such an 'observation', as to the nature of what has been observed, is RELATIVE TO the space-time 'reality' OF the observer's condensate-of-corporeal-reality, AND the 'time' that is presently (because the 'observation' is taking place in the Present!) extant IN that condensate! SO, on the corporeal side of the fence, from the 'perspective' of differentiated relativity, that photon has 'originated' billions of (space-time) years in the Past, RELATIVE TO the 'time' that it has been 'observed' (in the 'here and now'! We have two different 'times', relative to that photon which has been observed! BUT, from the incorporeal side of the fence, from the 'perspective' of UNdifferentiated relativity, that photon has just now been 'created', AND THERE IS NO 'old', or 'younger', or even velocity, because there is no space-time, and all is non-local! On that side of the fence, that photon has NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever, from any other photon wave, and ALL possible/probable 'realities' exist, 'ripe for the picking', but however, as yet in the 'unpicked state', UNTIL any one of those UNDIFFERENTIATED 'realities' is so observed!

  92. SO, EVERY condensate of Corporeality, has a 'fence', which also means that EVERY 'Life-form' in the Cosmos, has a 'fence'! And each of those condensates has a 'fence', because there are two sides to every equation! (Which is a linguistic 'aphorism', and NOT a mathematically-related 'truism'! Although, IF such a statement SHOULD apply to Mathematics, might it be a 'clue', as to being able to use math to describe Incorporeality, as to the two sides of EVERYTHING?) There is both Corporeality AND Incorporeality EXTANT (or existing!) WITHIN EVERYTHING Corporeal! There is everything that is visible and knowable, about anything, and then there is the invisible and unknowable, about the same thing (speaking of anything corporeal)! And the 'truth of the matter' IS, that such physical/material/corporeal 'existence' COULD NOT BE, except that such an 'existence' HAS BEEN 'created' FROM the invisible, from Incorporeality! In the human being, the corporeal brain and body exist, on one side of the fence, while the human Mind exists on the other side of the fence! The fence being each and every glial-synapsial-junction of the brain/Mind, across which fence flow the billions of 'signals', from and to each side of the fence, that enable that human being to exist! And both sides of this unique 'fence', this human being (both brain and Mind!), have been created from the genetics of that human individual, which, in turn, have been 'created' FROM Incorporeality! Yes, a gene, and the genetics of a human individual, is a condensate 'Life-form', of BOTH Corporeality AND Incorporeality, both existing within the human individual! Incorporeality 'creates' the genetic 'pool', and in turn, the genetic 'pool' creates BOTH the human brain/body AND the human Mind, each of which operate on opposite sides of the 'fence', but interface most extensively with each other, within the glial 'interface' junctions!

  93. Anyway, to get back to light and your photons, perhaps I have adequately now explained why photons are both corporeal and incorporeal!

  94. [Richard]The only physics I know of that does not have spacetime in it is Loop Quantum Gravity which describes things at the Planck Scale, so they think. Actually the Planck scale is not in the theory to begin with. It's just a calculational procedure using what are called Wilson Loops.

  95. What the Loop physicists do is to weave together a bunch of Wilson Loops and out pops area and volume and space-time and the Planck Scale and quantum theory and the big bang, etc. So perhaps this math represents the corporeal emerging from the incorporeal. But I doubt it. Based on what you have said about the incorporeal, it seems more like loop theory is just a more fundamental way to describe space-time and all the emergent laws of physics. Since all the laws of physics can be obtained this way, it is a unified theory that combines gravity with quantum mechanics, even more fundamental than string theory, which assumes a space-time background, that means that all known physics is corporeal.

  96. [Jerome] Well, I am not knowledgeable at all about LQG or Wilson Loops, but it sounds like it might at least be the start of something, although some of the 'attributes' that you mentioned about such 'physics' sound contradictory. If LQG does not have, or describe, 'space-time', then how can it 'describe' the Planck Scale, which IS corporeal space-time? As to Wilson Loops, if area-volume (i.e., density!) and space-time and everything else, 'pops-out' of these Wilson Loops, maybe it is a form of 'fence', or detector, whereby waves convert to particles. If truly so, then perhaps this is again another 'gain', in the search for a more-complex math-of-the-incorporeal! But, on the other hand, perhaps your 'analysis' is correct, that it is nothing more than a new 'perspective', or way of looking at, all the laws, theories and 'realities' of Corporeality, especially if it separately addresses (differentiated relativity!) gravity and quantum mechanics, which, as you correctly note, does assume a corporeal existence, for the objects/subjects of their examinations!

  97. [Richard] I was really hoping that the combination of wave/particle duality and Everett's multi-reality quantum theory might give us a handle on the incorporeal, for it contains many of its ingredients you spoke of. But it seems that is not to be. If math cannot be used to describe incorporeal reality, then there is no hope that science can ever be useful in that regard. It makes me wonder how you can claim to know the theory of the Unitary without using math, as you claim on your site. No math- no theory.

  98. [Jerome] Yes, you are correct, that I do 'claim', on my website, that QUFD is a 'new theory', but then I also definitely and distinctly 'qualify' that 'assertion', by many times stating the fact that QUFD is a PHILOSOPHY of the Incorporeal, which I also state has NO math whatsoever involved, or used, to describe what is thusly discussed therein those webpages! Also, if I remember correctly, I also further 'qualify' my use of the term 'theory', to note that it is a multi-disciplinary 'theory' NOT specifically OF physics alone, but encompassing, philosophically, any and all additional 'disciplines' as might apply thereto! And I also prominently 'post', on my Opening Page, Theoretical Physicist David Deutsch's quotation, that the purpose of Science is NOT to develop, or engage in, 'theories', but instead, in lieu of such 'trivialities' as 'the practice of theorization', the ultimate purpose of Science is to EXPLAIN REALITY (a plurality presumed)!

  99. [Richard] BTW- I know of no math that describes God and/or Lucifer. Lederman talked about the God Particle. But that is just the Higgs field. In other words, since physicists-do-not-believe-in-god-they can-say-anything-about-him-that-they-care-to.-I-lost-my-spacer-key.-Must-be-the-coffee-I-just-spilled-on-my-keyboard-.Oh-well.
    I-have-said-enough-for-now.-Ask-the-guy-upstairs-if-math-applies-to-the-incorporeal.

    Richard

    (A reply from Father Jerome)

  100. [Jerome] Well, Richard, I don't usually 'ask the Guy Upstairs' for anything (although I certainly quite often Thank Him!), but rather, He 'delivers-to-me' what He wants me to 'know'! I'm quite comfortable with that arrangement, as it keeps me 'out of trouble' by keeping me 'In the Moment', rather than me 'running around', trying to 'make' something, or 'create' something, of my own volition, which, unfortunately, by my own 'experiences', is most prone to failure, when I try to corporeally 'push' some, or someone else's, button, or buttons! And I've had enough failures to last a Lifetime already, so I don't need any more! But, I am most Happy with What He has shown, and given, me and I appreciate it very much! And Please, Don't ask me to 'Question' Him! I gave that up a long time ago! But, maybe I should, once in a while! Perhaps that is what I love about CBS's hit Friday-nite show, "Joan of Arcadia", because she has enough 'gall' to give Him 'lip', or to 'tell Him where to go', until He patiently can 'teach' her what He wants her to do or know! And I get a 'kick' out of the very concept of God showing up, here in everyday Life, as a punk-rocker with body-rings and pink hair, as He did just last week!

    Jerome

    (A reply from Richard)

    Father Jerome,

  101. [Richard] This is the last email of three. I had to take my keyboard apart and clean it. And now I have to pound the keys to get them to work. It was not what I was writing to you, even though the spacer went first after coffee spillage. It was because I was thinking of turning over to the Boston Globe the fact that our Republican Governor Romney has not paid my Boston Alarm Co Fife & Drum Corps, for two jobs, going back to December.

  102. Well, back to wave/particle duality. I have to assume that it is the connection between the incorporeal and the corporeal because otherwise we have nothing to work with. Besides, you are clear that all axion waves and particles are incorporeal. Let's stick to EM fields and photons, because that is my expertise.

  103. [Jerome] But I prefer not to, Richard, because E & M are quantum forces/fields of Corporeality, existing NOT within the unitary nature of Incorporeality! And I've dealt with E & M telecommunications and 'realities ' (and physics!), enough in the past, so I don't need to even think about such 'complexities' any more! Compared to such 'complexities' (as man does so make it!), my 'side of the fence', Incorporeality, is a blissful 'heaven' of simplicity!

  104. [Richard} I am willing to assume that photons are collapsed EM fields, and that EM fields are incorporeal.

  105. [Jerome] WHAT? If photons are 'collapsed' from anywhere, it is from Incorporeality [Incorrect! Should be Corporeality!], which, being unitary, cannot distinguish between 'electric' and 'magnetic' forces! And EM fields are corporeal, not incorporeal!

  106. [Richard] You may object to that, but I see no other recourse. Actually I prefer a no-collapse theory like that of Bohm, where the axions guide the photon particles. I spoke of that in my paper. But that is incidental to where I am going.

  107. You also spoke in this email below of an hierarchy of condensates, where the larger one (not volume larger, but rather greater in some sense), where the greater condensate is incorporeal relative to the lesser condensate. That tells me that there are levels of condensates.

  108. [Jerome] Yes and No! Again, it is 'perspective'! From the 'perspective' of God, there is one Big Condensate, of His 'creation', but within that Condensate are infinitudes of lesser condensates! From the 'perspective' of humanity (and Carl Jung!), there are 'levels' of Consciousness, all of which (such 'levels') are actually condensates, dependent upon the exact 'purpose', or reason, for their existence, wherein the condensate-level of a 'Family' is a quite small condensate, whereas the 'Family of Man' condensate-level (of all of humanity!) is a quite large condensate!

  109. [Richard] My conjecture is that the wave/particle duality applies at every level. The waves are always members of the incorporeal condensate and they "collapse", whatever that means, into particles in the corporeal condensate, at every level.

  110. [Jerome] Well, Yes and No again! And again, it is 'perspective'! You are right, that the 'waves' are always members of an incorporeal condensate, and that they might 'collapse' into 'particles' in a corporeal condensate! But what you are leaving out is that both condensates (from one 'perspective'!), MIGHT BE THE SAME CONDENSATE, with a big 'fence' EXISTING EVERYWHERE within the condensate, with corporeality on one side and incorporeality on the other side! (Such an example would be a human being!) BUT, it is true, from another 'perspective' (that of your 'levels-perspective'), the corporeal condensate might be a lesser condensate within the larger condensate of incorporeality! (Such an example might be that human being condensate existing within the larger condensate of God!)

  111. [Richard]In the incorporeal condensate, at any level, the axions are waves, whereas in the next lesser corporeal level the axions are particles and therefore more coarse than the incorporeal axions.

  112. [Jerome] I don't know that we can bring 'coarseness' into our 'equations' here, as that very thing is an attribute of corporeality, and since axions are ALWAYS extant in Incorporeality, NOT Corporeality. Now, maybe your photons might apply here, though! But then, that would be saying that axions are always incorporeal, even when they convert/collapse to 'particles' (of incorporeality!), and thusly they (axions!) can NEVER BE OBSERVED! Such a statement is true! But, on the other hand, since your photons CAN COLLAPSE, from incorporeality TO corporeality, AND be 'observed' within corporeality, AS PHOTONS. THAT MEANS that, when the photons are within the unity of Incorporeality, THEY ARE NOT photons, but are, instead, the ONLY quantum 'entity' THAT CAN EXIST within Incorporeality, a quantum axion wave/particle (actually, a wave!) Because QUFD principle states that the ONLY thing that can exist within Incorporeality ALONE, is the quantum axion particle or wave! Therefore, when the photon ORIGINALLY 'entered' Incorporeality, IT MUST HAVE BEEN 'converted' TO a quantum axion (particle) wave, and then reproduced as a photon, when that axion wave 'collapsed' into corporeality! This may sound feasible, and it has just 'crossed-my-mind', as possibly conforming to QUFD principle, but, at the same time, I am 'receiving' a 'warning', that such a 'theory' does NOT conform to QUFD principle, because such a 'theory' tends to 'fly-in-the-face' of QUFD principle! INSTEAD, QUFD principle states that the photon, which 'popped-out-of-the-ether' (incorporeality!), was 'created' BY two 'waves', one from the Past and one from the Future! And since those 'waves' were within incorporeality, therefore those 'waves' MUST HAVE BEEN axion waves, and NOT photon 'waves', in that photons, electrons, bosons, quarks, etc., ARE NOT EXTANT within incorporeality! Therefore, from this 'perspective', the photon was 'created' AS A PHOTON, WHEN IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE, within corporeality! And this 'perspective' does NOT negate the previous discussion above, with regard to your 'musings' about the wave/particle 'collapse' of a photon! Because, from that 'perspective', YES! A photon MAY have 'entered' incorporeality, somewhere in space-time, and been duly 'converted' TO an axion (or axions!) AND, a photon DID 'pop-out', here in corporeality! But in between, it could NOT have been one of any of the corporeal quantum particles, which is what a photon IS. corporeal, NOT incorporeal! SO, from the QUFD 'perspective', it took infinite 'realities', within Incorporeality, of quantum AXION waves, to 'create' two 'composite' waves, one from the Past, and one from the Future, to then 'create' the PHOTON 'particle', that was produced in the Present, by the 'observation' Of the experiment's equipment, OR our eyes!

  113. Wow! If this is what 'passes' for 'theorization', I don't like it! It has almost worn me out, just trying to determine whether any part of a statement is True or False! But, Thank You, Dear Lord, for the 'experience'! However, since I was always remaining In The Moment, I could 'sense' that You were there with me, and I 'listened' to your 'advice', comparing such a 'theory', with the actuality of QUFD principle, which has already been 'laid-down', i.e., published, on the pages of the QUFD 'Textbook', so I could readily 'see' the 'fallacies' inherent in such a 'theorization'! That is why I now 'feel' so comfortable, in 'accepting' the second statement, based as it is, upon the existing QUFD principles, THAT a photon IS 'created', from axion waves, of Past and Future 'reality', WHEN that photon 'pops' into existence, within Corporeality! Indirectly, the 'reality', of a photon, entering the 'system', of Incorporeality, at some point of space-time, and thusly becoming one of the 'realities' that contributes TO the photon that 'pops-out', is thusly NOT NEGATED, by the use of QUFD principle! It merely shows the consistency of the Reality, that there is definitely a 'relativity', or 'perspective', to ANYTHING, and that one must understand those 'realities' and 'perspectives', if one is to understand Corporeality and Incorporeality!

  114. [Richard] As we go to higher and higher levels, the axions become more fine- finer in Carolina. But it seems that math is finite. The same math applies to many different situations. So I venture that the math that describes wave/particle duality is the same at every level.

  115. [Jerome] Leave the axions out, and you are correct! Your math does apply to such 'situations', of CORPOREALITY, but NOT Incorporeality! There is NO math for Incorporeality, as yet!

  116. [Richard] I agree that we do not yet have that math. Actually we have several different maths, that depend on the various interpretations of quantum theory. We do not know which one is correct. Since you speak often of emergent, self ordering properties of condensates, my guess is that the math of loop theory based on spin graphs is likely to be the one. Right now physicists apply it only to the lowest level condensate. But it could work at any level. And it is the only math that predicts that space-time and forces are emergent properties of nature.

  117. [Jerome] Okay, I can go with "emergent properties of nature", but not yet with the 'levels', because Incorporeality is much more complicated than merely 'levels'! This 'smacks' to me, again, of trying to fit everything into a one-reality theory, which is very hard for me to buy!

  118. [Richard] It would seem very strange to me that god would give us the ability to do math, and as a result the ability to do science, if math did not apply to all realities.

  119. [Jerome] God seems to be able to accommodate the fact that everything in human Life is a 'learning-curve-based' reality, which, within the condensates of human existence and corporeality, extends over the space-time 'given' BY Him! Thusly, Aristotelian 'science and mathematics', was super-ceded by Copernicusian 'science and mathematics', which was super-ceded by Kant/Newtonian 'science and mathematics', which may have been super-ceded by Einsteinian and other. and so on! This is Corporeality, that we are 'living', Richard, and as you so accurately state, Corporeality is the major 'emergent' from Incorporeality! Perhaps that science and mathematics 'emergent' that you are looking for, will yet arrive some day! After all, it was probably 'put into' the 'mix' of Incorporeality, about a couple of billion years back!

  120. [Richard] I think you agree that there must be a math of the incorporeal. If wave/particle duality is akin to incorporeal/corporeal duality, (continued)

  121. [Jerome] WHICH IT IS NOT! NOT when using corporeal math to describe it! It IS, if Incorporeal math might be used to describe it!

  122. [Richard] then you must reconsider your claim that Maxwell's equations are corporeal.

  123. [Jerome] Nope!

  124. [Richard] They may be corporeal for the next higher level. But they must be incorporeal for photons.

  125. [Jerome] No, no, no! Sorry, Richard, but I am 'sticking to my guns'! I trust what has been 'given' me, and I am not about to violate that Trust!

  126. [Richard] That is the point of this response.

    Richard

    (Further commentary by Jerome)

  127. [Jerome] Well, Richard, overall I would say that you are slowly but surely 'getting there', in your understanding of Incorporeality! I can only Wish You The Best, and hope that somehow, either you or those of your colleagues, will 'come up' with the math that describes everything that I have described philosophically! The only 'barrier' to that, so far as I see, is that both Science and Mathematics, AND the 'Visionaries' thereof, have as yet not 'leaped over the fence'! The only advice I can give, as I have already done so many times already, is that one must 'Go Into The Mind', in order to 'see' Incorporeality, because as long as one is looking for it within Corporeality. Well, you know, Richard! It is THERE, but invisible! Jerome

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:14 AM
    Subject: Re: Further Math

    Father Jerome,

  128. I would like to focus on one aspect of our discourse here which I sense that you are in contradiction with yourself on.

  129. !.You state that all waves are incorporeal

  130. !. But then you state that EM waves are corporeal

  131. Maxwell's equations are the math of waves.

  132. So you have to choose. Either waves are always incorporeal and we know the math in incorporeality. Or waves are corporeal.

  133. The wave equation presumes the existence of spacetime. The wave solution is a function of distance and time. From all you say, that must make it corporeal.

  134. Yet in the same email below, you talk of photons coming popping out of a wave-like incorporeal. That describes exactly what happens when photons are created, but immediately become incorporeal as waves in free space; and then upon detection collapse into particles again. That is the explanation I would prefer.

  135. The alternative is to say that photons radiate as EM waves which are corporeal and spacelike and eventually collapse back into photons upon detection. That explanation I do not like because it removes science from ever getting a handle on the incorporeal.

  136. And I see a big inconsistency in your saying that all waves are incorporeal, for in order to get a wave you have to already have a space and time for the math description of a wave. A wave is an object in math given for example by E=sin(x-ct) which describes the propagation of a wave at speed c. It could be an EM wave, or a sound wave, or a water wave. The later two are definitely corporeal. If you say EM waves are also corporeal, even though they are invisible, have no force unless converted to photons, and do not experience time, then I see no hope. Waves are definitely corporeal, not incorporeal.

  137. Now perhaps you do not mean "waves" in the ordinary physics sense. You have used dimension in a different sense than used in ordinary physics. Perhaps the same is true of your definition of waves. So might you define your concept of a wave for me. Otherise, what you say is inconsistent.

  138. Let me pull out some paragraphs for comment:

  139. 1. "[Jerome] If Maxwell's equations say anything about 'waves', at least that is a start, because ALL waves are Incorporeal, even when they exist within a condensate of Corporeality (where they are still invisible)! "

  140. [Richard] The wave equation comes from Maxwell's equation when applied to EM propagation in free space.

  141. [Jerome] 2."the zero-gravity unitary-nature of Incorporeality/Consciousness/Dark Matter/Energy "

  142. [Richard] That means that incorporeality is massless. Mass would seem to be necessarily corporeal, although you have not specifically said so. So the axions must be of the Dark Energy type, as Dark Matter has mass.

  143. [Jerome] 3."I do know that Incorporeality begets, or 'creates', space-time or Corporeality! So, whether we have a valid 'prediction' here, of incorporeal wave function (NOT referring to math 'functionality', but instead referring to the functional 'dynamics' or activities OF Incorporeality, and of what these waves actually DO within incorporeality!), using corporeal math 'functions'."

  144. [Richard]Here is a possible solution. For things like detectors or people at rest, the spacetime created by the incorporeal is singular, unique, i.e., the same for all. We do not experience different spacetimes. Otherwise we could not prevent every car from crashing into every other car. The spacetime that incorporeality creates is a reality held in common. Same for stars and planets and moons. We can predict where all steller objects are in space as a function of time.

  145. So can you agree that spacetime is given apriori. If not, there is no reason to continue. It would follow that it is the Great Incorporeal Condensate of God that is creating the same spacetime for the whole universe.

  146. All lesser incorporeal and corporeal condensates are therefore embedded in spacetime and have wave or particle motion that is described mathematically as a function of spacetime. Think about this one. It is key. It is a single reality we experience in common. The very fact that you say incorporal condensates are non-local implies that you are considering distance as a property of incorporeal condensates. They cannot be both non-local and not have space.

  147. If you can agree with this, then incorporeal condensates can be understood with known science. And they can be thought of as being composed of axion waves which are the wave functions of all particles. The axion wave functions are then incorporeal and they either collapse according to Bohr quantum theory, or part of them are selected according Everett theory (you describe the continued existence of waves below), or the axions guide continuously existing particles according to Bohm theory.

  148. Well, I should have stopped at the previous paragraph. By spelling out the consequences of agreeing with me, I am sure I have dissuaded you from agreement. But I am a full disclosure type of person. It always gets me in trouble, especially where secrets are concerned.

  149. Remember, the essence of my argument is that if you see the moon in the same place as I (even if we are on opposite sides of the planet and our other properties are rather different) then the Great One has created an in-common spacetime for all of us; and we are therefore allowed to describe all lesser condensates as functions of that unique spacetime.

    Sincerely yours,
    Richard

    (A reply from Jerome)

    Richard

  150. I'm going to re-read your lengthy last reply over again and probably respond further then. But, I can initially see, by your initial confusion, that there has been a simple misunderstanding regarding my words.

  151. Again, the problem is 'perspective', Richard, and perhaps I have, or we have, the problem that you are not going to correctly understand the 'content' of my words, until you can get the CONTEXT correct! And unfortunately, you and I have a basic difference, or opposition, which automatically, perhaps, creates misunderstandings!

  152. And that difference/opposition, Richard, is our basic REFERENCES! You constantly REFER to facts, principles, theories, and, might I say, 'content', which derive from your 'frame of reference', or CONTEXT... which is CORPOREALITY, and Newtonian Physics (including all the current 'investigators', who, basically, yet have a Newtonian Physics background)! That statement is NOT a 'discrimination' nor a 'denigration', but I merely state it as a fact! My REFERENCE, which you yet have difficulty in 'seeing', but which is the CONTEXT for almost ALL of my content and discussion thereof such 'content', is NOT Corporeality, but is INCORPOREALITY! Which means that most of the time, even though I may be conscientiously trying to address issues of corporeality that you have raised, in order to accurately 'relate' (relativity, again!) your 'state' or 'worlds' of Corporeality TO Incorporeality, my MIND is basically REFERRING to, or 'referencing', the 'context' of incorporeal fact, truths, principles, and content, as so 'written in Law', already, BOTH in the pages of QUFD, AND in my MIND, or the Collective Consciousness, where most of my words have come from probably! As so, there is a simple explanation for your lead-off 'misunderstanding', that you have begun your last missive with. The solution is this! From your context, or perspective, when I said that "all waves were incorporeal", you presumed that I was talking about 'waves' of corporeal quantum particles, such as your photon, or bosons, leptons, etc., which is what Maxwell's equations refer to! THAT was NOT the case! In MY 'context', from my 'perspective', I was referring TO quantum AXION 'particles', which exist ONLY in incorporeality, and the waves of which also exist in incorporeality, there being specific 'realities', or quantum 'states', within incorporeality, in which axion waves ALWAYS exist, but certain 'realities', or quantum 'states', also within incorporeality, which are almost like a 'mirror' of corporeality, and in which the quantum axion waves are thusly 'acting' like 'particles' INSTEAD OF waves! But, again, ALL OF THIS has its CONTEXT in Incorporeality!

  153. So unfortunately, when I am trying to 'clarify' your 'understanding' of incorporeality, I guess I am sometimes making the mistake of not identifying the CONTEXT within which my 'thinking' has reference to, which again, is a problem of 'perspective'!

  154. Maybe, as we are finding out here, the two issues of 'realities' and 'perspectives', are going to be the greatest 'hurdles' to anyone 'stepping over the fence' and understanding incorporeality! Because the criteria IS, that unless one can have the proper viewpoint, or 'perspective' CORRECT, they are inevitably going to misunderstand a vital 'content' issue of incorporeality because they do NOT have the CONTEXT, or 'perspective' correct! One CANNOT be applying a corporeal context to the 'realities' and content of incorporeality! One MUST have a contextual 'perspective' OF incorporeal 'realities', facts, principles and truths (and NOT necessarily only as I have put forth in writing!), and that 'context', those 'realities' and such, can only come from the Collective and Incorporeality, MEANING that, simply, one must 'go into' the MIND, for understanding, and NOT rely upon corporeal 'references' and 'thinking' (which come from the 'memories' of the lower mind and non-permanent consciousness, and NOT from the Collective and permanent Consciousness)! When I say one must go into the Mind, I really mean that one must access their Soul and BEYOND, In The Moment, in order to access Truth! Such cannot be 'accessed', merely by accessing what exists in the 'databanks' of one's impermanent lower mind! And such 'access', also requires one thing more... TRUST, that what one 'receives', from one's Soul and beyond, is the TRUTH!

  155. Let me read the rest of your last email, Richard, and I'll get back to you!

    Jerome

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:48 PM
    Subject: Re: March 23

    Father Jerome,

  156. Perhaps you do live in a different spacetime than I. The planets are not aligned over Massachusetts. I live in the country and I can easily see them all and they are not anywhere near each other. What is true now, corporeally true that is, is that jupitor is closer to us than it has been for the last 500 years.

  157. I do remember when all the planets were lined up. I was living more in the city at that time, about 5-7 years ago. Yet I could easily see them all lined up, although the line was not straight. It curved like a whip. But nothing of significance happened then. Not even your birthday.

  158. Bought a new keyboard. Only $15.

    Richard

    On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:43:16 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

  159. Well, I don't know, Richard, about the planetary 'alignment'. I can't see much of anything, really, as I live in the downtown area of a city and I don't even get out of my penthouse apartment much because of my multiple disabilities. (NO! I am not living the life of Howard Hughes!) But I do know that a planetary alignment is supposed to have some kind of significance, and there it was, being reported on national news, ABC News, last nite, on my birthday, complete with a drawing that some news department somewhere had found of the planets in alignment across the skies, with each one of the planets in a straight line across the heavens plastered with its name right above it. It did cross my mind, though, that I thought it was a bit unusual, as to the customary significance of planetary 'alignments', that I thought they usually 'faced' Earth somehow, as to the 'course' of the straight line, in order to 'point-to' Earth and thusly indicate that the significance 'applied' to something on Earth! However, what they showed on TV was the planets lined up in a straight line across the skies, with the straight line PARALLEL to the path of the Earth, and NOT 'pointing' toward Earth! I also noted that it seemed strange, although entirely possible as shown, in that Mercury and Venus are inside the orbit of Earth and the other three are outside of Earth's orbit! But ABC News DID show all the five planets lined up!

  160. Actually, perhaps there is a 'significance', here on Earth, to events and happenings, perhaps to not only myself but also others as well. Because what has 'crossed' my mind, as I write this message to you, is that such a 'happening' was meant to be an example of what I have been trying to get across to you regarding different 'perspectives', and 'seeing' something corporeal from one 'perspective' and 'seeing' something incorporeal (or invisible, or NOT 'visible', for another reason!) from a different 'perspective'! From your 'perspective', the corporeal, physical 'viewpoint', here on Earth, actually looking out at all these planets, they are all a mumble-jumble, and not in alignment! BUT, as the TV News I guess was implying, IF one could 'place' themselves in some 'location' way out in outer space, which could be said to be an incorporeal, invisible, not-able-to-actually-see-except-in-the-mind's-eye kind of location... THEN one would actually 'see', in their Mind's eye, the actual planetary alignment!

  161. Now, the other point of this is that, from your 'perspective', the must-see-it-to-believe-it 'perspective', what was 'Real', or 'reality', is that there was NO planetary 'alignment'! BUT, from my 'perspective', even though this astrophysical 'event' DID OCCUR, there, in outer space, where no one could actually see it (except as reported!)... it was NO LESS REAL, because it DID happen, and it was 'REAL', an actual, factual, truthful, 'reality'!

  162. So there were actually two 'realities', one which was visible (no alignment!) and one which was invisible (true alignment!) One side of the 'fence' saw nothing, but the other side of the 'fence' did 'see' something! And this 'fence', between the visible and the invisible (Corporeality versus Incorporeality!), EXISTS EVERYWHERE in the Universe, not only at the most Ultimate 'level' (God) versus the most mundane 'level' (Man)!

  163. The 'example' I gave you the other day, was an example of a 'local' dual-reality! The Earth itself, is physically 'real' and has a corporeal existence! But the Earth has been 'created', and was 'given birth', from the 'primordial chaos' (from one viewpoint!, but from another 'perspective', it (the condensate of corporeal Earth!), indirectly 'came from' Spirit, or Consciousness, or Dark Matter/Energy, or Incorporeality, or God, which is a gigantic incorporeal condensate WITHIN WHICH the Earth still 'IS', as a part thereof, that Infinite Consciousness! Therefore, the Earth ALSO has an 'invisible' (Spirit/Consciousness/God) 'reality' about it, existing simultaneously AT THE EXACT SAME space-time 'location', AS the physical Earth, BUT actually being a condensate of Incorporeality, therefore it has NO space-time EXCEPT the space-time that it has 'created', the Earth (actually, the Universe!) Actually, the unitary 'field' of incorporeality, penetrating throughout Earth, is what is 'invisible'!

  164. Okay, let's try another example, here! Let's get back to your math. And, guess what, I'm going to agree with you, about the math, across-the-board, Richard, but beware... As to our planetary alignment, perhaps this was an instance where the math actually told us about, or described, something that we could NOT SEE, the planetary alignment across the skies, which was probably and most accurately 'described' by mathematics most thoroughly, and thusly we 'knew' that it, as a 'reality', was actually happening, or did exist, even though we could not 'see' it! So here, you might say, that mathematics was, in reality, not only able to describe corporeal reality (what was happening on Earth!), but also incorporeal 'reality' (what was happening in the Universe!) And I WOULD AGREE!

  165. BUT, I would also say, that I was in-agreement, ONLY from that one, single, 'perspective'! The 'perspective' OF... the applicability OF mathematics TO EVERYTHING that takes place WITHIN the corporeality, and space-time, OF one, single, condensate of 'reality'... that of the Universe! And I will repeat that! I am talking about the SINGLE condensate of Corporeality, of the Universe (including ALL the infinitudes of condensates that exist WITHIN it!)... which ALSO EXISTS WITHIN the Ultimate Condensate OF Incorporeality, that of the Cosmos, or Infinite Consciousness (God)! (And I called all the infinitudes of realities WITHIN the Universe, 'condensates', BECAUSE ALL of these infinitudes of realities actually have a 'duality' about each and every one of them, meaning that each reality exists in the corporeality of the Universe, but it ALSO exists, simultaneously, just like the Earth that I mentioned above, WITHIN Incorporeality, or the Cosmos, therefore it also has a 'reality', a dual-'reality', which is a condensate of Incorporeality, as well!)

  166. So again, here, we have the dual-reality of TWO condensates of 'reality', existing at the same exact location, one visible (corporeal!) and one invisible (incorporeal!)! One INSIDE of the other! And one (the invisible one!) having 'given birth' to the other one (the visible one!) From one 'perspective', we see one, the Universe! From the other 'perspective', we do NOT see the other one, God, EXCEPT in our Mind's 'eye'!

  167. Now, getting back to the math! Your math, I agree, entirely describes EVERYTHING that is happening, in ONE of these two condensates, BUT NOT IN THE OTHER! Your math describes ALL wave and particle relationships, AND ALL of the quantum particles that produce those relationships...

  168. (and note, that I am NOT using 'quotes' here around certain terms, because the lack of 'quotes' refers to a term or reality that is purely physical/material/corporeal, and thusly always true, whereas the use of 'quotes' around a term means that that 'reality' may or may not be true - it is for the reader to determine! But the use of 'quotes' can ALSO mean that the term, or phrase, 'which is being quoted', is merely being 'emphasized', or given additional 'impact', BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS 'TRUE' - so here, again, it is for the reader to determine what the exact 'situation' IS! Capitalization is merely an emphasis on 'intonation', as I would so do IF I were actually speaking the words!)

  169. ...such as photons, bosons, leptons, fermions, etc., which DO EXIST within this single CORPOREAL condensate of reality - the Universe!

  170. BUT, from another 'perspective', on the other side of the 'fence', from WITHIN the second condensate, the condensate of the Cosmos, and Incorporeality, and God, your 'math' does NOT APPLY, because your quantum 'particles' DO NOT EXIST within this second condensate, NOR do the wave/particle 'relationships' OF such 'quantum particles'! The ONLY quantum 'particles' that exist in this second condensate, of Incorporeality, ARE quantum axion 'particles/waves' of Consciousness, and they ONLY pertain, or 'exist', in 'relationship' TO the actions and 'dynamics' that take place WITHIN Incorporeality (in that quantum axion 'particles/waves' CANNOT EXIST WITHIN Corporeality, or space-time)! Quantum axion 'particles/waves' can CREATE 'space-time', but they do NOT exist within it, EXCEPT to the extent of the 'results' OF their 'actions' (whereby, as the reason for creating 'space-time', the axion particles actually 'dis-engage' ALL of the quantum forces/fields and gravity, FROM the Unitary-field of Incorporeality, so that the quantum forces/fields, such as the E & M forces, can thusly 'perform' their nominal 'functioning', as separate and differentiated forces/fields, WITHIN the 'space-time' that has been created, and thusly enable such things as electromagnetic 'communications' to ensue, between differentiated and separate condensates of corporeality! (And here I am merely 'quoting' facts and principles from the webpages of the QUFD website!)

  171. So your math does not apply here, to the second condensate of the Cosmos, nor to the incorporeality of the infinitudes of incorporeal condensates that accompany all those infinitudes of corporeal condensates within the Universe! Some day, when someone has stepped 'over the fence' and 'seen' that second condensate of the Cosmos, as well as the first condensate of the Universe... THEN we will probably have a math of incorporeality, and not just of corporeality!

  172. One thing more! Let me address this discussion exclusively to your E & M fields, and the Electromagnetic 'spectrum' thereof! In the Electromagnetic spectrum, AND in the electromagnetic TV signals that 'create' the pictures on our TV screens, we have two basic 'realities', which, as to TV, might be called black and white! But, in between 'black/white', are the many 'realities' OF each and every color that exists between black and white! But, contrary to what you might think, when the SINGLE 'reality' of a certain shade of yellow, is 'created' by the TV-signal-producing equipment, we might say that within the circuitry of the equipment, that yellow-signal 'exists' as a 'particle', but when it is broadcast, from the TV antenna, it 'radiates' through time and space, as a 'wave', or waves, of the electromagnetic quantum forces and fields, and is then 'converted' back to a 'particle'-nature (actually, electronic!), when it is 'received' by your TV set, and then 'produced' on your TV screen as a yellow color! (This is simplistic, as it is much more complicated than this!)

  173. The point here, though, is that we have E & M forces and fields, and conversion from 'particle' to 'wave' and back, dealing with multitudes of 'realities' (colors/black/white), and we have equipment that 'creates' one kind of 'particle-reality' from another kind of 'particle-reality' (basic electrical power!), AND we have the math that describes BOTH the 'particle' AND the 'wave' nature of all these multitudes of 'realities'... (we certainly cannot say that there is ONE SINGLE Reality, here!) we actually have multitudes of 'realities', all involving your E & M forces and fields! (And 'c-squared', as well, or the speed of light, as these E & M 'waves', while traversing time and space, are duly 'exercising' their speed-of-light 'abilities', as well!)

  174. BUT, ALL of these 'realities', are 'taking place', or extant, WITHIN that gigantic corporeal condensate OF the Universe! In other words, your math DOES APPLY, because it is all happening WITHIN Corporeality, within a condensate of corporeality, the Universe! BUT, at the same time, your math does NOT apply, to what we do NOT see - THE COSMOS, or God, which exists, in 'REALITY', at the exact same location as the Universe, AND WHICH HAS 'CREATED' the entire condensate of corporeality which is the Universe!

  175. And here, as well, the QUFD principles of quantum axion particles/waves also apply! In that, your very E & M forces/fields, which have 'enabled' the TV 'communications' that I have just described, WERE CREATED BY the quantum axion particles/waves WHICH CREATED the space-time corporeality OF the condensate of the Universe, WHEN, in the 'creation' of the Universe's space-time, quantum axion particles/waves OF Consciousness, so 'dis-engaged', FROM the Unity OF the condensate of Cosmos/God/Incorporeality, the very CORPOREAL quantum forces and fields which have so, in turn, 'created' the 'communications' which I have discussed! In other words, Consciousness (God) has 'created' the corporeal condensate of the Universe, as well as 'creating' the corporeal condensate of the Earth, as well as 'creating' the corporeal condensate of individual Man... EACH ONE of which, as corporeal condensates (or, actually, condensates of corporeality!), WERE CREATED as condensates of space-time, ALONG WITH all of the quantum forces/fields (OF the quantum particles thereof, i.e., bosons, fermions, leptons, electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, etc., etc.!), that were 'dis-engaged' FROM the unitary 'field' of Incorporeality, WHEN each of those corporeal space-time condensates WERE CREATED! And since each one of these mentioned condensates of corporeality (Universe, Earth, Man), exist by reason OF the very 'creation' (actually, I guess, I should say 'Creation'!) OF each one FROM Incorporeality, wherein that condensate of Incorporeality 'Gave Birth' TO a new and unique 'Life-form' (the Universe, the Earth, and Man!), therefore each and every such condensate of corporeality, ALSO HAS ITS invisible 'twin', a 'Life-form' of INCORPOREALITY, that exists, and IS 'REAL', at the exact same 'location', of space and time, as each one of these corporeal Life-forms! BUT, the 'reality' IS, that the 'twin', the incorporeal condensate 'twin', of Consciousness, ACTUALLY CREATED its corporeal 'twin' condensate, of the Universe, of the Earth, and of Man!

  176. And thusly, within that incorporeal 'twin' condensate, of Consciousness, of our human Mind, are the quantum axion particles of Consciousness, which actually 'gave birth' TO the Reality OF the corporeal brain/body (AND all the corporeal quantum forces/fields thereof!) Actually, the quantum axion particles 'created' the space-time of the human being, by first, 'creating' the quantum forces/fields which 'created' our DNA, or genetics. Then, from our DNA and genetics, the individual incorporeal local human Mind was 'created', and finally, from DNA and genetics, our corporeal brain/body were 'created'.

  177. SO, we have a 'duality', to EVERY condensate of corporeality IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE! Within each and every condensate of corporeality, space-time exists and so do all the corporeal quantum forces/fields and particles thereof! BUT, at the same time, also WITHIN each and every one of these corporeal condensates, exists the TWIN condensate of incorporeality, or Consciousness, which is actually SEPARATE FROM (and may even be larger than!) the condensate of corporeality! One visible, the other invisible! And that condensate of corporeality IS ACTUALLY a condensate which has derived FROM Incorporeality, or Consciousness! And thusly EVERYTHING has two sides, of the 'fence' - Corporeality and Incorporeality! WHAT one sees, or 'sees', depends on one's immediate 'perspective, or viewpoint!

  178. Richard, this took longer than I intended (or thought it might!). I've got something otherwise important which I have to do now! I have yet to re-read your last two emails, but I promise I will as soon as possible and get back to you!

    Jerome

    (A further email from Jerome)

  179. Okay, Richard, maybe this brings me up-to-date! Here it is, almost 5 PM and I've been working on this since 6 AM this morning!

    Jerome

    Richard

  180. Okay, I was finally able to get to reviewing your two previous messages and I have again combined them here for easier response and piecemeal commentary.

  181. Let me state something herewith, that seems most apparent to me. In reading over what you have said in your messages, I can only come to one conclusion. That you do, in essence, agree with my argument, that there are multiple spacetimes and that we individually create our own individual spacetime 'realities', rather than there being one single 'reality' for everyone. And I say this, because what you have said, all of it, is consistent with what I have described! You have exactly described the 'realities', of both the corporeal and the incorporeal! The only problem is, that they are not correct, even though consistent with my description! And the reason is, because you have described these 'realities', corporeality and incorporeality, as you are yet doing, exclusively from your single-reality 'perspective', from only the corporeal 'side of the fence'! And by doing so, you do not yet 'see' the infinitudes of 'realities' on the incorporeal 'side of the fence', which actually are contributing to that single-reality that you are assuming is all there is! And by doing so, assuming as such, you are missing so much! So, even though you are correct in what you state, it is correct only so far as your 'vision' of corporeality/incorporeality goes, but it is not correct as to the actual, factual, 'reality' of both corporeality and incorporeality!

  182. And I hope this is not offending you in any way, as your comments, sometimes, are neither offending to me, as I realize that we are both only trying to understand each other and that our dialogue can be 'crisp', as is to be expected, in a debate where 'unknowns' are involved and the very debate itself is a means of resolving and understanding those 'unknowns'! So, again, Pardon Me, Richard, if I sometimes might sound 'crisp', but I think you will agree that, perhaps, the 'end of the trail' may be worth the few 'rough spots' and mountains that may be necessary to 'climb'!

  183. Let me continue here by pointing out exactly what I mean in my overall assessment regarding our present understanding of each other, by going through your comments one by one! And I do wish that you could keep in mind that, something may be true and real from one 'perspective', but that the 'totality' of something may not be exclusively that one 'reality' or 'perspective' alone, but actually does encompass multiple 'realities' and 'perspectives', all of which are equally true! This is surely a case where the most basic law of quantum physics applies hereto! Meaning, the law of 'observation'! A single-reality exists, or comes into existence and reality, when it is 'observed' or selected, from among the infinitudes of 'realities' which are possibilities/probabilities! That one single-reality, the one 'observed'/selected, becomes visible, and all those other possibilities/probabilities remain invisible, and un-observed, and unknown! But, the point that is being missed here, is that, over there, within incorporeality, all of those un-observed, unselected, possibilities/probabilities, by their very 'existence' there, in incorporeality, HAVE THUSLY CONTRIBUTED TO that single-reality which you have so selected! WITHOUT the 'existence' of those 'realities', those un-observed and un-selected possibilities/probabilities, over there in the unknown realms of incorporeality, your single selected 'reality' COULD NEVER have come into existence!

  184. And let me go further here in detailing why this is so! (And this is actually a digression, from the content of our discussions, but I feel that, as a contributing factor to understanding each other, I need to lay out the simple 'facts' that are, and have been, guiding our discussions here! And those simple 'facts' are the basic laws and principles of quantum physics! Other 'researchers' might be 'stretching' such 'facts' into hypotheses that are metaphysical and speculative, but I feel, that by sticking exclusively to but the few basic laws and principles of quantum physics, I am being not only consistent in everything that I describe but also neither metaphysical nor speculative!)

  185. Okay, the basic quantum physics and reason therefor what I am talking about herein these commentaries. I am merely applying the most basic principle of all BEC condensates, that of the unity and coherence of ALL the axion particles/waves extant within such a condensate! Which means that there is non-locality in existence everywhere within that condensate! It also means that all the quantum forces/fields and gravity, are unitary, and also non-local (no space-time!) And this further means that such a condensate, with all of the basic properties that I just described, exists everywhere! And I will repeat that! Exists everywhere, in the COSMOS!

  186. And if gravity, as well as the other quantum forces/fields, are unitary and non-local everywhere in the Cosmos, that also means that Past, Present and Future are also unitary and non-local everywhere in the Cosmos! In other words, what I am saying is that, at any point-location of the Cosmos (to repeat the word previously used - everywhere!), the Past, Present and Future exist simultaneously!

  187. Okay, let me go on here, as the other most basic laws and principles of quantum physics also apply here as well! In BEC condensates, the basic 'landscape', of the single unitary and non-local condensate, is ordered, organized, self-ordered, created, comes into existence, and exists, again everywhere, as a single reason, or purpose, or as a result of, or response to, a reason or purpose, for the existence of that condensate! And in the Cosmos, the most simplest reason, for the existence of any condensate of incorporeality, is... Life! And the only difference, between any two or more condensates of incorporeality, is the specific and particular Life-form which that condensate exists therefor! And such differences arise, or are defined by, the further actions and dynamics that take place within any incorporeal condensate, by and through the application of the further basic laws and principles of quantum physics and BEC condensates! So we do, necessarily, have to take a look at such further laws and principles.

  188. First of all, I need to reiterate here that the basic 'ground-state' of any condensate, is predicated upon that one single reason that has brought that condensate into existence! (But the further laws and principles shall also apply!) And that reason is, usually, Life (although there are condensates that might not 'create' Life, but might certainly contribute to the 'creation' of Life within other condensates!) And that basic 'landscape', of a condensate of 'Life', comes into existence also as a result of the two basic 'states' of the Cosmos, a 'duality', of Order versus Chaos! (Now this 'duality' is somewhat related to the existence of Positivity and Negativity, or Good versus Evil, in the Cosmos, but I am not going to discuss that here!)

  189. So, we have a basic 'landscape', extant within every incorporeal condensate in the Cosmos, which is related to the particular Life-form of that condensate, and which 'landscape' is composed of two basic 'states', Order and Chaos, super-imposed on top of each other, as the unitary and non-local 'nature' of that individual condensate!

  190. Now, the further actions and dynamics, and laws and principles, acting within and with our basic 'landscape', (such as further self-ordering, aggregation of possibilities/probabilities/realities, adaptability to such complexities, perturbations of such aggregations, decision-making in response to realities and their 'inputs' to the condensate, the existence of points-of-criticality between Order and Chaos on that basic 'landscape', and more such 'dynamics'!) are not only going to determine the specific Life-form of our condensate, but exactly where that particular condensate of incorporeality 'fits', on the Scale of Life, of all the condensates in the Cosmos!

  191. Now, remember, every condensate of incorporeality... and I may need to repeat this!... every condensate, exists everywhere in the Cosmos! Do I need to repeat that again? Every condensate exists everywhere in the Cosmos, and is unitary and non-local! And remember one thing more here... I am talking about condensates of incorporeality! I am NOT talking about CORPOREALITY! I am saying that ANY condensate of incorporeality, exists everywhere in the Cosmos! (A basic fact of physics law and principles!)

  192. Now, let's go on! There are a number of 'dualities' in the Cosmos, and the 'dualities' of Order versus Chaos and Positivity versus Negativity (NOT referring to electrical 'charge'!) are but two of the 'dualities' that exist! The most basic 'duality', is that of Incorporeality versus Corporeality! And remember, incorporeality is unitary and non-local, whereas corporeality is dis-assembled (non-unitary!) and local! Incorporeality, being non-local (and everywhere!), has no space-time, whereas corporeality, being local and localized, has space-time!

  193. Also, remember, from physics law and principle, incorporeality, and the quantum axion particles/waves thereof, can 'create', as the 'perturbation' output thereof... LIFE! In other words, a condensate of incorporeality, can 'create' another condensate, but the new condensate, can be a condensate of CORPOREALITY! In other words, since the quantum axion particles/waves, of any incorporeal condensate, can 'create' SPACE-TIME, therefore the new condensate of space-time that is 'created', is a condensate of Corporeality, or LIFE! (Note, however, that not every condensate, that is 'created' from incorporeality, is a condensate of space-time/corporeality and Life! Other condensates that may be 'created' may be another form of an incorporeal condensate, and NOT corporeal nor having space-time!)

  194. Further, as another basic principle, incorporeality BEGETS corporeality! So, this is one of the two reasons, for the existence of the 'duality', of incorporeality versus corporeality! First, every incorporeal condensate in the Cosmos, which has 'given birth' to a 'Life-form', has actually 'given birth', or 'created', TWO condensates, one condensate of incorporeality, and its TWIN, a condensate of corporeality!

  195. So, there are actually TWO condensates, extant, for every Life-form that exists in the entire Cosmos! Every condensate is part of a 'duality', a 'duality' of incorporeality and corporeality! One condensate is incorporeal, invisible, unitary and non-local (everywhere in the Cosmos!) The other condensate is corporeal, visible, non-unitary and is localized... AND HAS SPACE-TIME! But ONLY the corporeal condensate has space-time, within its borders! The incorporeal condensate does NOT have space-time, because it exists EVERYWHERE in the Cosmos!

  196. And one needs to be correct here, when discussing a condensate, as to whether it is a condensate of incorporeality, which exists throughout the Cosmos, or whether it is a condensate of corporeality, which is localized and has space-time! So 'perspectives' are important!

  197. Now, again, to repeat, we have 'dualities' of infinitudes of condensates, throughout the Cosmos, with one of the twin-condensates visible and the other 'twin' invisible! One of the twins extends throughout the Cosmos, the other twin is localized! One of the twins does not have space-time, and the other twin does have space-time!

  198. Let's give some examples! If the Cosmos itself, is the invisible condensate of Infinite Consciousness (God), or Incorporeality, or Consciousness/Spirit, or Dark Matter/Energy (whichever you wish to call it!), then its 'twin', the condensate of Corporeality, is the Universe, with space-time, and is the Life-form that has been 'created' by the condensate of Incorporeality, and is the Life-form that includes the condensates of all the other Life-forms that have been 'created' BY all other condensates of Incorporeality! And since the Universe is a corporeal condensate containing infinitudes of other corporeal condensates (each one, though, having it's incorporeal 'twin'!), each of the lesser Life-forms therein that one gigantic condensate of the Universe, MUST EXIST, as to its particular 'location' or 'level' within that condensate of the Universe, somewhere on the SCALE OF LIFE, meaning that, dependent on its particular characteristics of temperature, density and much more, such a sub-condensate of corporeality within the Universe, may be a galaxy, a pulsar, a star, a planet, a human being, an ant, an electron, or a boson, on the Scale of Life! Here is where the Planck Scale, and Maxwell's Equations, and Newtonian Physics, come in, in determining exactly what Reality, within the Universe, any particular Life-form shall take or be!

  199. And, as to such lesser condensates, each one has also the next larger condensate above it, within both corporeality and incorporeality, which did so 'create' that space-time, that 'Life', that was so created! (The next larger condensate of Incorporeality, or Consciousness, actually gave Life to the lessor condensate and the next larger condensate of Corporeality actually determined its final 'form', along with the existing 'environmental' situation into which it was 'born'!)

  200. BUT, remember, EVERY Life-form, EVERY condensate of corporeality, HAS ITS TWIN! So, the one twin, the corporeal twin, has space-time (corporeality/materiality/physicality!) and exists within a condensate of corporeality, the totality of which is visible and localized. The other twin, the incorporeal twin, has no space-time, is unitary and non-local, exists throughout the Cosmos, and is invisible!

  201. Thusly, each one of our Life-forms, appearing on the Scale of Life (which spans both sides of the fence, both Corporeality AND Incorporeality, whereas the Planck Scale and Maxwell's Equations relate ONLY to the corporeal side of the fence, i.e., the corporeality of the Universe!), are located on that Scale of Life as so determined by not only the temperature and density of their immediate 'realities', but also by all of the Universe's 'factors' of space and time, and the quantum forces, fields and gravities thereof, which have contributed to, and brought, that particular Life-form, TO the point of its present existence and Life!

  202. Therefore, we have the 'dualities', or twins, of every Life-form that exists, from our galaxies, stars, pulsars, planets, mankind, an individual human being, an ant, and a boson! Each 'Life-form' was 'created', from Incorporeality, from Consciousness, from Spirit, and was made extant, given birth, into a new condensate of corporeality (its new, individual Life!), within the overall condensate of the Universe and also the lesser condensates of which it was also a part thereof, whether such lesser condensate of corporeality might be one's family, one's race, one's planet, or one's Universe! So, a pulsar has twin condensates, the incorporeal one, of Consciousness and Spirit, having created the corporeal condensate of the actual physical pulsar! One is localized to the regions of that pulsar. The other one extends throughout the Cosmos! Likewise, a human baby has twin condensates, the incorporeal one being the sum results of the intentions of both parents (the next larger condensates!) and much more, and the corporeal one being the actual physicality of that baby's existence! And as that Life-form develops into a human being, that person still has an incorporeal twin condensate (their Mind, and Consciousness!) which is invisible and incorporeal and extends throughout the Cosmos, as well as their corporeal twin condensate, which is the totality of their physical brain and body and which is localized only!

  203. Enough basics! I am sure you can definitely understand the differences in 'perspective', as to whether one is talking about a condensate of Corporeality (which may exist within a larger condensate of Incorporeality!) or a condensate of Incorporeality (which may exist within a larger condensate of Corporeality!) The specific rules, Scales, laws and principles, that apply to any aspect of any condensate, are thusly different (or may not even apply!), depending on which kind of condensate you are talking about (the visible corporeal twin, or the invisible incorporeal twin!)

  204. Let me make one final summation of all of this! Every lesser condensate of corporeality, or sub-condensate, or Life-form, that exists (no matter what kind of Life-form!), exists within the totality of the larger condensate of corporeality which is the Universe, where all applicable laws and principles of physics apply thereto such individual condensate-Life-form, which is also, within the Universe, localized as to its specific point-location! At the same time, that specific individual Life-form also 'belongs to' a slightly larger condensate (or condensates!) of corporeality, from which it was 'given birth', or otherwise 'exists', such as the immediately larger condensate of one's parents and family, to the next larger condensates of tribe, race, nationality, work-group, up to the condensate of humanity (as to pulsars, please determine for yourself, as to what their 'familial' and other relationships might be!) At the same time, every one of these Life-forms, these individual condensates of corporeality, HAS A TWIN, a corresponding condensate of incorporeality, that actually gives, and continues to give, that 'Life', to that individual condensate of corporeality, or Life-form... and that twin, is Consciousness, or the Mind, of that corporeal individual! But, the difference between these 'dualities', these twins, is significant! The corporeal condensate, the physicality of the brain and body, exists in the local point-location of its existence! HOWEVER, the incorporeal twin, the Mind, and Consciousness, is a condensate that is unitary and non-local, and therefore the invisible twin, exists THROUGHOUT THE COSMOS!

  205. Now, I am finally going to go on to your previous commentaries. Here goes!

    (Both of the following messages originated March 23, 2004)

    Father Jerome, (3/23 8:14 AM)

  206. [Richard]I would like to focus on one aspect of our discourse here which I sense that you are in contradiction with yourself on.

  207. !.You state that all waves are incorporeal

  208. [Jerome] PERSPECTIVE, PERSPECTIVE! I said that all quantum axion waves are incorporeal! I was not referring to waves or particles of quantum corporeality, as photons, bosons, etc. When attempting to understand something, one MUST have the context correct!

  209. [Richard]!. But then you state that EM waves are corporeal.

  210. [Jerome] Yes! Because, at that point of the discussion, in referring to EM waves, I was referring to a context of corporeality (which is what EM waves are!) and there EM waves are corporeal!

  211. [Richard] Maxwell's equations are the math of waves.

  212. [Jerome] Yes! Within Corporeality! NOT within Incorporeality (as far as is so far known!)

  213. [Richard] So you have to choose. Either waves are always incorporeal and we know the math in incorporeality. Or waves are corporeal.

  214. [Jerome] Context is not correct in these statements.

  215. [Richard]The wave equation presumes the existence of spacetime. The wave solution is a function of distance and time. From all you say, that must make it corporeal.

  216. [Jerome] Yes! All correct, in the context of Corporeality!

  217. [Richard] Yet in the same email below you talk of photons coming popping out of a wave-like incorporeal. That describes exactly what happens when photons are created, but immediately become incorporeal as waves in free space; and then upon detection collapse into particles again. That is the explanation I would prefer.

  218. [Jerome] Which is correct!

  219. [Richard] The alternative is to say that photons radiate as EM waves which are corporeal and spacelike and eventually collapse back into photons upon detection. That explanation I do not like because it removes science from ever getting a handle on the incorporeal.

  220. [Jerome] Likewise no and yes! The problem here, again, is getting your 'perspectives', or contexts, mixed up! Within the overall gigantic condensate of corporeality which is the Universe, as I have said elsewhere, we can have incorporeality and corporeality existing at the same time! Actually, in reference to your photons, which are a specific space-time, we do have light 'travelling' between incorporeality and corporeality (as far as I know!)[NOT correct!], upon detection of the photons. But, in the different space-time 'reality' of your EM waves, EM forces/fields remain within corporeal space-time when they 'travel', and thusly the speed-of-light and other EM factors must apply!

  221. [Richard] And I see a big inconsistency in your saying that all waves are incorporeal, for in order to get a wave, you have to already have a space and time for the math description of a wave. A wave is an object in math given for example by E=sin(x-ct) which describes the propagation of a wave at speed c.

  222. [Jerome] Which is the speed-of-light, a corporeality!

  223. [Richard] It could be an EM wave, or a sound wave, or a water wave. The later two are definitely corporeal. If you say EM waves are also corporeal, even though they are invisible, have no force unless converted to photons...

  224. [Jerome] Since when are electric and magnetic signals converted to photons??? Photons are already extant within the electromagnetic spectrum, which is, of course, entirely corporeal! They (photons) don't need to be converted (i.e., if, as such, from axions), other than in detection of themselves from light waves, which are corporeal! There is NO interplay, here, between corporeality and incorporeality!

  225. [Richard] (Continuing) ...and do not experience time, then I see no hope. Waves are definitely corporeal, not incorporeal.

  226. [Jerome] In Corporeality! And ONLY 'waves' of corporeal quantum forces/fields and entities!

  227. [Richard] Now perhaps you do not mean "waves" in the ordinary physics sense. You have used dimension in a different sense than used in ordinary physics. Perhaps the same is true of your definition of waves. So might you define your concept of a wave for me. Otherise, what you say is inconsistent.

  228. [Jerome] The explanation is simple! Use the correct 'perspective' or context! There are corporeal waves and there are incorporeal waves!

  229. [Richard] Let me pull out some paragraphs for comment:

  230. 1. "[Jerome] If Maxwell's equations say anything about 'waves', at least that is a start, because ALL waves are Incorporeal, even when they exist within a condensate of Corporeality (where they are still invisible)! "

  231. [Richard] The wave quotation comes from Maxell's equation when applied to EM propagation in free space.

  232. [Jerome] Here, again, the context is important! Our discussion, at that point, was inquiring as to the possibility as to whether Maxwell's Equations, and Math in general, could ever be applied to Incorporeality! So the context was incorporeality (which is verified by my mention of such 'waves', of incorporeality, also existing within corporeality!) So when I referred to 'waves', even in the context of considering whether Math and Maxwell could find a 'home' within incorporeality (the context being discussed!), I was surely entertaining the thought as to whether quantum axion waves, which are always incorporeal, could some day be 'described' by mathematics and/or Maxwell's Equations! But if Maxwell's Equations and Maxwell himself, historically existed in the 1800's, and thusly I doubt he even had any intention of applying his Equations to incorporeality or quantum axions! Also, though, he was, in effect, trying to explain the 'invisible' nature of his EM forces/fields and the waves thereof, and he had no inclination, or realization, that his EM waves, even though invisible, were yet corporeal, based upon the very corporeal nature of his electric and magnetic forces/fields, and thusly also confined to the limitations of corporeality, as to space-time and the propagation of EM fields through that space-time, at the speed-of-light, which is also corporeal!

  233. And I know I may have said elsewhere (which, if I remember right, I questioned!) that photons MIGHT 'convert' from light to incorporeality, to engage in their 'travels', subsequently 'converting' back from incorporeality to corporeality and being detected as photons, but I realize now, from your very obvious statement regarding EM forces/fields, that photons, also being corporeal quantum 'entities' (like bosons, etc.), are ALWAYS of a corporeal nature, even when 'travelling' invisibly, at the speed-of-light! And this can be logically verified by merely thinking about it further, to the extent that the speed-of-light, in traversing space-time, however 'fast' such may be, is still of a corporeal nature, in that it yet exists and experiences the 'realities' of space-time, and therefore is always corporeal!

  234. [Jerome] 2."the zero-gravity unitary-nature of Incorporeality/Consciousness/Dark Matter/Energy "

  235. [Richard] That means that incorporeality is massless. Mass would seem to be necessarily corporeal, although you have not specifically said so. So the axions must be of the Dark Energy type as Dark Matter has mass.

  236. [Jerome] Well, I think even you yourself have said that it is a questionable 'proposition', as to the actual nature of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy! But, that questionable 'proposition', or hypothesizing, comes from all those researchers whom you also sometimes refer to, as to their descriptions of either Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and what they have published about such! The ONLY things that I have ever said, and have likewise published on the QUFD website, is that 'Dark Matter', OR 'Dark Energy' (whichever!), OR WHATEVER it is, that is 'taking up' space in the Universe (if it can actually be said to be consuming 'space'!), IS, in reality, nothing more than Consciousness, or Infinite Consciousness (God), which is comprised of quantum axion particles/waves of Incorporeality! Since Consciousness exists as Incorporeality, which is UNITARY, wherein all the corporeal quantum forces/fields and gravity are non-unitary, I have always doubted that either Dark Matter or Dark Energy could have either 'mass' OR 'energy', because, according to Einstein, mass converts to energy and vice-versa, which can ONLY happen within Corporeality, NOT within Incorporeality! Also, if I am correct, this concern about missing or invisible 'matter or space' in the universe, came about only as the result of mathematical calculations, as applied to existing spacetime! Thusly, I have the additional problem, as to Dark Matter or Dark Energy, in that it 'patently' is a mathematical 'construct' of spacetime, whereas Consciousness is obviously NOT of spacetime, but only of 'spacetime' as such exists within Incorporeality, where such 'spacetime' is NOT actually spacetime!

  237. [Jerome] 3."I do know that Incorporeality begets, or 'creates', space-time or Corporeality! So, whether we have a valid 'prediction' here, of incorporeal wave function (NOT referring to math 'functionality', but instead referring to the functional 'dynamics' or activities OF Incorporeality, and of what these waves actually DO within incorporeality!), using corporeal math 'functions'... I don't know!"

  238. [Richard]Here is a possible solution. For things like detectors or people at rest, the spacetime created by the incorporeal is singular, unique, i.e., the same for all. We do not experience different spacetimes. Otherwise we could not prevent every car crashing into every other car. The spacetime that incorporeality creates is a reality held in common. Same for stars and planets and moons. We can predict where all steller objects are in space as a function of time.

  239. So can you agree that spacetime is given apriori. If not, there is no reason to continue. It would follow that it is the Great Incorporeal Condensate of God that is creating the same spacetime for the whole universe.

  240. [Jerome] Yes and No! Again, it is a matter of 'perspective' or context! God certainly has created the Universe, which is an overall space-time, but He has also 'created' every lesser condensate of incorporeality which, for whatever reason, has a need, whenever and wherever, to 'create' spacetime, in order to enable its very existence and functionality! And contrary to your above implied argument, condensates of corporeality do NOT 'create' spacetime! ONLY condensates of incorporeality can do that!

  241. [Richard] All lesser incorporeal and corporeal condensates are therefore embedded in spacetime and have wave or particle motion that is described mathematically as a function of spacetime.

  242. [Jerome] Perfectly true! I knew you were in agreement with what I was saying! However, here is again where context is important, as what you say, which is what I agree with, applies ONLY to corporeal spacetime and NOT to incorporeality, and certainly NOT to ALL condensates as may exist! And neither can mathematics describe incorporeal 'functioning'!

  243. [Richard] Think about this one. It is key. It is a single reality we experience in common.

  244. [Jerome] Yes and No! From one 'perspective', we experience the common reality of the Universe! I have no argument there! But, from the 'perspective' of the individual, we also experience 'reality' that we 'create'!

  245. [Richard] The very fact that you say incorporal condensates are non-local implies that you are considering distance as a property of incorporeal condensates. They cannot be both non-local and not have space.

  246. [Jerome] No! I have never considered distance as a 'property' of Incorporeality, except if you wish to correctly imply that Incorporeality, being non-local, is everywhere! Incorporeal condensates are both non-local and they do not have space-time (except whatever space-time may be 'created' within any incorporeal condensate by any other incorporeal condensate that may have the necessity of 'creating' space-time in order to perform its functionality!)

  247. [Richard] If you can agree with this, then incorporeal condensates can be understood with known science. And they can be thought of as being composed of axion waves which are the wave functions of all particles.

  248. [Jerome] NO, NO, no! Axion waves are ONLY the 'function' of axion particles, which ONLY EXIST in incorporeality! Axion waves can NEVER be the 'wave function' of corporeal quantum particles (photons, bosons, etc.).

  249. [Richard] The axion wave functions are then incorporeal and they either collapse according to Bohr quantum theory, or part of them are selected according to Everett theory (you describe the continued existence of waves below), or the axions guide continuously existing particles according to Bohm theory.

  250. [Jerome] The first part of your above statement is correct but I have no idea as to whether such incorporeal activity and 'dynamics' can be described by any existing corporeal theorization or mathematics! As to axions 'guiding' corporeal quantum particles, no way! We're talking 'apples versus oranges' here, and whatever they are, they're not even in the same ballpark!

  251. [Richard] Well, I should have stopped at the previous paragraph. By spelling out the consequences of agreeing with me, I am sure I have dissuaded you from agreement. But I am a full disclosure type of person. It always gets me in trouble, especially where secrets are concerned.

  252. [Jerome] Good, disclose all secrets, including the ones that you are not yet seeing! You haven't dissuaded me from anything! It is always a pleasure to 'go 'round' with you, Richard, as it amazes me to the extent that my words, which I always think are so simple and detailed, can yet be misunderstood! I can see where there is war and conflicts in this world, because of misunderstandings, where one person's 'perspective' is apples while the other person's 'perspective' is oranges!

  253. [Richard] Remember, the essence of my argument is that if you see the moon in the same place as I (even if we are on opposite sides of the planet and our other properties are rather different) then the Great One has created an in-common spacetime for all of us...

  254. [Jerome] Yes!

  255. [Richard] (continued) ...and we are therefore allowed to describe all lesser condensates as functions of that unique spacetime.

  256. [Jerome] Yes and No! Again, 'perspective' and context! What you say is true WITHIN corporeality, but NOT incorporeality!

    Sincerely yours,
    Richard

    (Another email on March 23, 2004, to Father Jerome)

    Father Jerome, 3/23 1:22 PM

  257. [Richard] At this point, my key point is that we all experience the same space time.

  258. [Jerome] Yes! But there is a hell-of-a-lot more to it than just that, and the further 'realities', so far as I know, cannot as yet be described by the mathematics of that single spacetime!

  259. [Richard] So all but the one greatest incorporeal condensate are embedded in space time.

  260. [Jerome] Again, yes and no! Context, context, context!

  261. [Richard] Otherwise my spacetime would be different from yours.

  262. [Jerome] It is!

  263. [Richard] Spacetime is still definitely corporeal. But there is only one.

  264. [Jerome] Yes and no!

  265. [Richard] And otherwise there is no way to describe an axion wave, or non-locality.

  266. [Jerome] Right! As far as I know, there is no way to describe an axion wave mathematically, only philosophically!

  267. [Richard] Both need space time, both distance and time. Axions cannot be non-local unless they experience distance.

  268. [Jerome] No, no, no! Spacetime is corporeal and axions are only incorporeal! They cannot 'experience' distance, because they are everywhere in the Cosmos at any instant of time, so they are thusly also not 'experiencing' either space or time!

  269. [Richard] Spacetime is not a random thing, which is to be expected if all incorporeal condensates created spacetime- the created spacetimes would be random.

  270. [Jerome] Yes, all incorporeal condensates CAN 'create' spacetime, but that is not to say that they all DO! And the spacetimes that ARE 'created', ARE entirely random, as you say, because each spacetime HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to any other spacetime NOR is there any common 'relationship' necessary or desired! Each spacetime is fulfilling ONLY the function for which it has been 'created', and nothing more! If the necessity is to 'communicate' between two differing condensates of incorporeality (such as the Upper human Mind condensate and the lower human mind condensate!), then the spacetime that is 'created' to do so is there to do that job only and nothing more!

  271. [Richard] But that is not the case. Spacetime is a single reality, with only a minor modification if the observers have relative motion.

  272. [Jerome] No! There can be infinitudes of spacetimes! It all depends on what context of corporeality or incorporeality you are 'referencing' to!

  273. [Richard] Furthermore from General Relativity, the geometry of the one spacetime results automatically in what is called the force of gravity. Spacetime is extremely fundamental.

  274. [Jerome] Fine and correct! But incorrect from all other 'perspectives'!

  275. [Richard] So for you to be correct, you have to show somehow that spacetime is different for every observer.

  276. [Jerome] PLEASE let me know if I have not done that, with my most recent tries at explaining it all! BUT remember, each 'observer' can be 'observing', or perceiving, or 'seeing', from any of infinitudes of different 'perspectives', context, or 'realities!

  277. [Richard] For if all incorporeal condensates create spacetime, the resulting spacetimes cannot all be the same.

  278. [Jerome] True!

  279. [Richard] The fact that they are the same, as proven by science and engineering, can only mean that such condensates cannot create spacetime, except for the one greatest condensate of all creating a spacetime common to all other condensates, whether corporeal or incorporeal.

  280. [Jerome] But ALL spacetime is never the same, ONLY that spacetime of the Universe, which leaves out a hell-of-a-lota other spacetimes!

  281. [Richard] So there,

    Richard

    (A reply from Richard) (3/24 8:24 PM)

    Father Jerome,

  282. Oh I get it. All the planets are lined up except earth. I thought you meant all the planets. Perhaps we do experience the same spacetime.

  283. Actually some years ago a guy wrote a book called the "Jupiter Effect" in which he speculated on what would happen when all the planets including earth were in line. Then a few years later when they were in line, nothing happened. But he sold a lot of books.

  284. Regarding your claim that spacetime is continously created by incorporeal condensates, I was not able to understand your reasoning. But no matter. I am unable to believe that each person in this universe experiences a different spacetime.

  285. [Jerome] I never said each person experiences a different spacetime! Again, the problem is your context. Also, you have correctly stated the 'root cause' of your problem, when you attribute your statements purely and only to 'belief', as you have just said, that you are relying on 'belief' rather than knowing, because you do not know! Lacking knowledge, belief is a very poor third alternative (after faith!), for actual knowing, of the truth and of fact!

  286. [Richard] We should let it go at that.

    Richard

    (From Richard)(3/26 6:14 AM)

    Father Jerome,

  287. [Richard] Some selections from your last email:

  288. [Jerome] That you do, in essence, agree with my argument, that there are multiple spacetimes and that we individually create our own individual spacetime 'realities', rather than there being one single 'reality' for everyone.

  289. [Richard] There are multiple realities but only one universal spacetime that we all experience.

  290. [Jerome] Yes and No! What you just said is correct, in the context of that single spacetime that we all experience, but we ALSO 'experience' our individual 'realities', within BOTH the overall spacetime and any individual 'spacetimes' as we may 'create'! At the simplest, as an example, if such were not so, there would be no such thing as 'dreams', whether in sleep or awake!

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    (continuing with statements which have been taken from a previous email)

  291. [Jerome] Which means that there is non-locality in existence everywhere within that condensate! It also means that all the quantum forces/fields and gravity, are unitary, and also non-local (no space-time!) And this further means that such a condensate, with all of the basic properties that I just described, exists everywhere! And I will repeat that! Exists everywhere, in the COSMOS

  292. [Richard] How can you say something exists everywhere when it does not have spacetime? That is a contradiction of English, if not physics. So if there is no spacetime in the condensate, it does not exist anywhere, not everywhere. Existing everywhere means in plain english that it has spacetime. Not existing anywhere from a corporeal perspective means that it does not exist. In addition, you have said repeatedly that quantum forces/fields are corporeal. But now you say they are unitary. Did you change your mind?.

  293. [Jerome] First of all, you have obviously taken these statements, from my previous emails, out-of-context, which, in your applicability-to-content, thusly means something entirely different to you! The context of my statement (of your most recent 'example' hereinabove), is obviously with reference to Incorporeality, and NOT Corporeality, to which you are applying it! Somehow, for some reason, you cannot adequately and correctly determine the context of anything! That seems to be your greatest problem in understanding Incorporeality, as context is most important, or else someone will never understand Incorporeality!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  294. [Jerome] Since when are electric and magnetic signals converted to photons??? Photons are already extant within the electromagnetic spectrum, which is, of course, entirely corporeal! They (photons) don't need to be converted (i.e., if, as such, from axions), other than in detection of themselves from light waves, which are corporeal! There is NO interplay, here, between corporeality and incorporeality!

  295. [Richard] Photons come from the collapse of EM waves when they are detected or experienced as a force. Only photons can exert force. EM waves are invisible and forceless. Even DC E fields and M fields convert to virtual photons when they exert a force. I am surprised that you worked in telecommunications and do not realize that photons and EM waves are both light. One is just the wave nature of light and the other the particle nature of light. Perhaps that is why we have such difficulty communicating. Electric and magnetic signals are propagated as EM waves and when they are detected the EM waves collapse into photons. They are always converted to photons. There ain't no other way that nature works.

  296. [Jerome] No problem with your reasoning or logic. So what is the problem, here? Is it context again, within your mind?
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  297. [Jerome]...'Dark Matter', OR 'Dark Energy' (whichever!), OR WHATEVER it is, that is 'taking up' space in the Universe,

  298. [Richard] You said it. It takes up space, contradicting everything else you have said.
    =============================================

    (continuing again)

  299. [Jerome] ...IS, in reality, nothing more than Consciousness, or Infinite Consciousness (God), which is comprised of quantum axion particles/waves of Incorporeality!

  300. [Richard] Right. And it takes up space and is consciousness. Consciousness takes up space.

  301. [Jerome] To yet be determined! I 'qualify' the fact that Consciousness takes up 'space' because Science as yet has no description of Consciousness other than through the use of corporeal spacetime terminology, which derives only from a corporeal mathematical 'construct' and nothing else! Yes! Consciousness exists, but whether it is 'taking up space', IS, as I have so indicated, 'questionable'!
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  302. [Jerome] Spacetime is corporeal and axions are only incorporeal! They cannot 'experience' distance, because they are everywhere in the Cosmos at any instant of time.

  303. [Richard] So here you say that axions experience time but not space. Are you saying that the same axion is everywhere at the same time? Or do you mean different axions. Light is everywhere in the Cosmos at the same time. In fact, light as I mentioned before does not grow old according to relativity. No matter where it goes in the cosmos, it stays at its original time. Yet light experiences spacetime in that we can specify its location in space as a function of our time, not its time. So light has the same properties that you give to axions, but light also experiences distance.

  304. [Jerome] And again we have problems of interpretation here due to context, but now also, we additionally have further problems due to the use of corporeal mathematics and corporeal scientific terminology, being applied to incorporeality! Saying that corporeal light waves 'exist everywhere' in the Cosmos and, at the same time, 'experience spacetime', is a contradiction of the basic laws of physics, as well as an 'application' of mathematics to a 'state' where it does not as yet apply, that of Incorporeality! Saying that light 'never grows old' and is, at the same time, when 'observed' or measured within the corporeality of our present spacetime, 'of the same age' as it was billions of light-years ago, is either an obvious fallacy of the applicability of mathematics to the 'realities' of Incorporeality, OR a distinction ONLY between three distinct possibilities: Time as a 'function' of standard corporeal spacetime; or Time as a 'function' of light-years of corporeal spacetime; or Time, or the non-existence of Time, as a 'function' of the atemporal and unitary nature of spacetime-less Incorporeality! Which is it?
    --------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  305. [Jerome] And the spacetimes that ARE 'created', ARE entirely random,

  306. [Richard] Saying so does not make it true.

  307. [Jerome] It sure as h--- does, when coming from the 'perspective' and context of Incorporeality, in which Truth does exist! Truth CANNOT exist in Corporeality, as I have written about on the pages of the QUFD website!

  308. [Richard] You have to give me an example of a random spacetime. What physics has proved experimentally over and over again more than anything else is that we live in a single spacetime. We may experience multiple realities. But they are all embedded in the same spacetime. Spacetime is singular.

  309. [Jerome] Again, your context is wrong, Richard! You are trying to apply corporeal physics and math, which you may even be misunderstanding yourself (for whatever reasons!), as to the actual definitions thereof, to incorporeality, where every one of those 'definitions' might apply (BUT, may NOT, until such can be 'verified!), but, to put it simply, your personal 'definitions' do NOT apply, because of your misunderstanding of the actual and true 'realities' of such laws and principles!

  310. [Jerome] I can only say Yes and No, and again the reason is context! (As well as the difference between 'belief' and knowledge!) I have already given you the example previously, of the random spacetime that is created between the Upper human Mind and the lower human mind to enable 'communications' between these two incorporeal condensates!
    --------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  311. [Richard] So for you to be correct, you have to show somehow that spacetime is different for every observer.

  312. [Jerome] PLEASE let me know if I have not done that, with my most recent tries at explaining it all! BUT remember, each 'observer' can be 'observing', or perceiving, or 'seeing', from any of infinitudes of different 'perspectives', context, or 'realities!

  313. [Richard] No, you have not shown that spacetime is different for different observers. I accept that there may be an infinite number of perspectives. But they are all in the same spacetime. Spacetime is corporeal- right? Therefore it is amenable to experiment. Show me an experiment that proves that spacetimes are random. Ain't none. They all show that spacetime is singular.

  314. [Jerome] I have patiently explained that spacetime is the same for all 'observers' WITHIN the context of a corporeal condensate, but that from the context of any 'perspective' within Incorporeality, there may or may not exist any 'spacetime', depending on the contextual 'states' or condensates as should exist at any point! Granted, this is a complex situation, but I don't know how much more simple I can get in trying to describe it without becoming incorrect in the overall, or any, context!
    --------------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  315. [Richard] For if all incorporeal condensates create spacetime, the resulting spacetimes cannot all be the same.

  316. [Jerome] True!

  317. [Richard] But they are the same. My logic is correct. My premise is not.

  318. [Jerome] What can I say? Logic and premise based upon 'belief' rather than knowledge, lead only to misunderstanding!
    -----------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  319. [Jerome] But ALL spacetime is never the same, ONLY that spacetime of the Universe, which leaves out a hell-of-a-lota other spacetimes!

  320. [Richard] I am not concerned with any spacetimes outside of this universe.

  321. [Jerome] ALL spacetimes BEYOND this Universe, ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN this Universe, and such is the reason that I not only have concern for spacetimes that are 'beyond this Universe' but that are also most RELEVANT TO such spacetimes as actually ARE extant WITHIN this Universe!
    -----------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  322. [Richard] The existence of a singular, unique spacetime for the whole universe was created by God in the beginning of our universe. The very fact that the universe has a beginning means that it exists in a single spacetime.

  323. [Jerome] I have no problem with that statement, but it does nothing to explain the 'reality' of God, which is what we have been attempting to do here, satisfactory to all concerned!
    -------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  324. [Richard] In addition, you once said that particles condense when a wave from the past interacts with a wave coming back from the future. So here again you are giving timelike preperties unto the incorporeal. I must admonish you for constantly mixing up what you call corporeal characteristics like spacetime with how you describe the incorporeal. If the incorporeal has no spacetime, then you cannot talk about non-local, or past or future, or everywhere, for they are all properties of spacetime. The fact that you cannot talk about incorporeal condensates without invoking characteristics of spacetime tells me that even in your unconscious mind, the incorporeal condensates experience spacetime. You just cannot admit it consciously. Please pardon the psychology.

  325. [Jerome] It is not psychology, Richard, as to the use of lexiconology or terminology from corporeal spacetime to describe Incorporeality, because until there is a better 'definition' of God and Incorporeality, such will have to be so! But that is why context is so important, because the 'realities' of God and Consciousness are NOT the realities of corporeal spacetime, and thusly one has to constantly be aware of exactly what context one is referring to when speaking of either Corporeality or Incorporeality!
    ---------------------------------------------------

    (continuing again)

  326. [Richard] In addition, I would like to suggest that for God, the future is unknown. So waves cannot come back from the future if it is unknown to God. My evidence for this comes from the Christian bible, that you should be familiar with. If God knew the future exactly, then the prophecies, in say Revelations, would be exact and unique. But instead, what we find there is a spectrum of possibilities from a catastrophic destruction of earth to a 1,000 years of peace. The reason for the spectrum of possibilities is that God does not know what humans will decide their fate to be. He/She gave us free will. So we can decide to be evil enough to commit suicide - a planetary suicide, now that we have the hydrogen bomb - or to live in peace - if we reject evil and love our enemies. But the point is that because of free will, god does not know ahead of time what the outcome will be on any particuliar planet. Therefore God does not know the future, He/She only knows the range of possibilities, given that it has already happened on many other planets. So besides each and every lesser incorporeal condensate being embedded in a singular spacetime, it is also a oneway spacetime. The spectrum of possible futures may be random to some extent, but the past is not. Physics prevents spacetime travel to the future, and probably also to the past. You may be able to travel in spacetime incorporeally into the past, and maybe into the future, but you cannot condense into particles and thereby affect the past or future. And what you see in the future is just one possibility of perhaps an infinity. God can see the whole infinity and therefore gives us the spectrum of possibilities.

  327. [Jerome] Again, I have no problem with what you just stated! But, again, it does not explain God or Consciousness!

  328. [Richard] Feynman, in inventing QED, used particles coming back from the future to interact with particles coming from the past. There are no waves in Feynman's QED (quantum electrodynamics), only particles, electrons from the past and positrons from the future. They interact to produce photons in the present. So if you abandon waves, you need to know the future. Therefore, the reason for incorporeality is to provide for unlimited possibilities in the future and the free choice to achieve any one of them. Ain't God wonderful!!! He/She gave us spacetime and free choice.

  329. [Jerome] Again, no problem with your reasoning or statement, within the context of Corporeality!

    Yours,
    Richard

    On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:27:28 -0800, Father Jerome FIWD wrote:

    Richard

  330. Before I should spend the time and effort to review again your last communication, and go through it patiently and logically, to point out the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions therein, I would like to ask whether it would be worth it? I would like to see the reason for two people, each of which 'states' (whether true or not!), that the other is consistently not seeing the facts and truths of the other's reasoning and concepts, to continue such a debate, when each one, apparently, cannot accept the simple realities of the other's position! I would love to continue our discussions, Richard, as your examinations of my words do make me realize that what I see so clearly, and have written about so extensively, is so susceptible to misunderstanding, by others who, at the least, do not see the simplicity and completeness that I have seen! I will not use any derogatory or denigrating words or terms to describe such misunderstandings, as such is not within my nature as a nominally non-confrontative person, as cooperation with one and all is what I have always advised. But, Richard, there has to be, at least, some basically common reference and common understanding, of basic realities, facts, and truths, as well as laws and principles, and such was the reason that I did attempt to review our common understanding of the basics of quantum physics, BEC condensates, adaptive complexities and other such realities as should apply to our discussions, in order that we might have some common basis for further communication and understanding! But, to put it delicately, you cannot see my position, or rather, you cannot accept my position, and I cannot accept your position, as long as we both shall continue throwing back and forth concepts and 'realities' (and I do place that word within 'quotes', to indicate questionableness!) that neither of us, apparently, can accept!

  331. Apparently, Richard, the very basic concepts of corporeality versus incorporeality, are so rife with dissention and misunderstanding (just as the known and the 'unknown', i.e., God, are also veritable fodder for dissention among mankind!), that I am amazed that so many people in this world, so many past and present readers of QUFD and the pages thereof, have not so voiced these dissentions and disagreements already with me, via more emailed complaints or inquiries! But then, maybe those are the folks that I have not heard from, and the many that I have heard from (who do understand QUFD!), are but the tip of the iceberg that is humanity, and that even though a significant minority might instantly understand my words, apparently there is also a most significant majority that may not! That is the immediate lesson that you are teaching me, Richard, that all is not well and good, in QUFD-land, even though, by all visible indications, I seemed to think it was! In effect, Richard, you are again teaching me a different 'perspective' of my own understanding of the basic physics inherent in corporeality versus incorporeality, this particular 'perspective' or context being that the visible minority of QUFD readers, who do understand the physics of QUFD and are happy therewith, are the corporeal or visible minority, while the much larger population of the world's readers of QUFD, who may have given up on QUFD because they do not understand it, are the invisible equivalent of incorporeality (or the 'unknown')! In other words, as you and I have both said (Maybe there were some things that we agreed upon!), there are 'dualities', in the world, the universe and everywhere! And the 'duality' here, is those QUFD readers who do understand, apparently a corporeal minority, and those QUFD readers who do not understand, apparently an invisible majority!

  332. Before I go on here, speaking of the 'unknown' and God, I really need to refute your contention:

  333. [Richard] "My evidence for this comes from the Christian bible, that you should be familiar with."

  334. [Jerome] I would like to question such statement, because in saying, or putting forth, such a statement, it just presents me with yet another example in which you have misunderstood, or not read correctly, my very words (as well as the numerous online webpages of the QUFD website!), wherein I have stated or written many times already, that when I do make 'reference' to God or religion, in any way, I am NOT discussing such matters/topics from a 'religious' viewpoint or 'perspective', merely from either my own personal 'experience' or from a purely scientific 'perspective'! And, as I have stated many times, the very basic reason for this is that I am NOT a Christian! I am not a member of the Christian faith or religion! I am a Member of the Ancient Order, which was Founded by Christ, and is based upon those Laws and Principles put forth by Christ, which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the modern-day, of this present human civilization, Christian 'religion' or the Christian Bible! The Ancient Order of Christ, of which I am a Member, has nothing to do with religion, because it is NOT a 'religious' Order, but is, instead, a SCIENTIFIC Order, Founded by the Greatest Scientist of All, Christ! So, even though I may occasionally 'remember', and quote, something from the Bible that might have significance within our discussions, I am, in NO WAY, any kind of 'expert' on the Bible, as it has NO relevance to that which I am!

  335. Incidently, Richard, this brings me to certain misunderstandings between us, as to definitions of words and concepts, that I just basically cannot let lie, as to such misunderstandings! PLEASE let me try to define, from MY 'perspective', at least a few basic words and such, that might somehow enable a commonality between us! Because, Richard, to put it bluntly, as you also did once upon a time, I am most willing to start over! I think that we both have something to contribute to the world (beyond what we individually have and already are so doing!), but the foremost necessity is to find a commonality in whatever that contribution might be, in order that not only ourselves, but the rest of that possibly-misunderstanding-majority out there, might so get it straight and correct!

  336. Okay, starting over (WITH your Permission???), I have used the word 'everywhere' (and the word 'non-local'), in relation to, and in definition of, incorporeality! I use that term in the way that quantum physics, BEC condensates, and such, mean it! You have implied, or indicated, that 'everywhere', and 'non-local', means throughout spacetime, as well as, according to your understanding, implying time and distance (spacetime)! I have said that such an understanding is both correct and incorrect, in that, from the actual definition from quantum physics, such an understanding is limited, or limiting, to the exclusivity of spacetime, whereas the quantum physics definition includes more than a single spacetime! To which you have responded that the only spacetime that you are concerned about is the single spacetime of this universe and that you could care less about any spacetime beyond this universe! (To which I was going to reply that ALL spacetimes BEYOND this Universe, ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN this Universe, and such is the reason that I not only have concern for spacetimes that are 'beyond this Universe' but that are also most RELEVANT TO such spacetimes as actually ARE extant WITHIN this Universe!) And before I continue, with this examination of 'everywhere' and 'non-local', by giving examples of these words, let me note one other word, or definition, that you have brought up, which directly affects the actual quantum physics definition of those words 'everywhere' and 'non-local'!

  337. The word, or definition, that you brought up, is the actual locality, or non-locality, of the quantum axion particle. First of all(and correct me if I am wrong on this!), I think we agree that the quantum axion particle is the basic unit, or particle, of Consciousness or Incorporeality, and is only found within Incorporeality, or God! (Although I am not sure that we even agree on that, as you have occasionally stated that axion particles, or the waves thereof, can be found 'invisibly traversing' spacetime, within corporeality! If you did not say that, I stand corrected! But, if you did say that, I probably said, "Yes and No!") And since I have said that Incorporeality (or God!) exists everywhere and is non-local (as well as invisible!), according to quantum physics and the principles of BEC condensates, that means that ONE quantum axion particle, as well as each and every quantum axion particle... exists everywhere! One particle, is everywhere, is non-local (even though time and distance may be used here as a 'reference', it is used as such because as yet, science and mathematics has no science and mathematics of incorporeality, and thusly, YES, science is trying to explain the 'unknown', by using existing words and definitions from the 'known', or corporeality! This is the same situation that exists within the world of computers, where the problem of computer viruses, within the 'state' of computer electronics, has 'taken on' a linguistic 'terminology', i.e., 'viruses', FROM the human Physiological Medical Sciences 'state', because there is NO comparable word as yet extant within the Computer Sciences 'state', and thusly the term 'virus' has crossed-over from one-'state' of existence to another completely different 'state' of existence!) And that is all science can do, and will be able to do (use cross-over words and terms, from the 'state' of corporeality, to the 'state' of incorporeality!), until it can come up with a science and mathematics to properly explain incorporeality, NOT as a mathematical 'function', or wave-function, of the known, of corporeality, but a definition of the 'unknown' itself, of incorporeality itself (and of God, Himself!) Using corporeal terms, words and functions (math or otherwise!), to try to explain the 'unknown' and incorporeality/consciousness, does not explain the reality, or the 'realities', or 'dynamics', of a unitary condensate of incorporeality/consciousness! (And perhaps that is another reason why I use 'quotes', when referring to 'activities' and 'realities' of incorporeality, to indicate that what I am referring to is actually taking place in another 'world', another 'dimension' (NOT another spacetime!), and NOT in our corporeal world, universe or spacetime!)

  338. Okay, getting back to the words 'everywhere' and 'non-local', let me try to give examples! The universe is, granted, a single condensate of corporeality and spacetime, and it is visible and known (at least, to the extent that we can see and know it!) However, it is a condensate of corporeal quantum particles and waves, of all the corporeal quantum particles and waves thereof (photons, bosons, fermions, leptons, quarks, electrons, protons, etc.) And it is a single, immense, reality, which we all experience, in whatever way we so do!

  339. Okay, again, before I go on here, I need to bring in here one more very basic law and principle of both quantum physics and BEC condensates! I've already pointed out that existing physics law and principle (as put forth by most all of our most eminent scientists/physicists!)...(to be continued)

  340. And, again, I will make one more digression here! I presume, as you have so indicated already, that you have read the entire QUFD website, including the numerous webpages, starting with my Comments pages, on which I quote from the following worldwide Physicists, as to the definitions, from quantum physics, that I use in my QUFD discussions:
    Henry P. Stapp, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs
    Eugene Paul Wigner
    John von Neumann
    Francis Crick
    Cristoff Koch (not sure if related, as my family name is Koch!)
    Donald Hebb
    Giuseppe Vitiello, Univ of Salerno
    Gordon Globus, UCal Irvine
    Roger Penrose, Oxford
    Ian N. Marshall, Oxford (incidentally, the husband of famous physicist Danah Zohar!)
    Del Giuice, Doglia, Milani and Vitiello
    Riccardi and Umezawa
    S.R.Hameroff
    Rhett Savage
    Samuel Braunstein
    Walter Cassani
    Dave Chalmers
    John Cramer
    David Deutsch
    David Finkelstein
    John Gribbon
    Alan Griffin
    Joel Henkel
    Arkadiusz Jadczyk
    Brian Josephson
    Alex Kaivarainem
    Victor Mansfield
    Matti Pitkanen
    Mitch Porter
    Huw Price
    Jack Sarfatti
    Tony Smith
    Vic Stenger,Br> Jack Tuszynski
    Kirby Urner
    and the additional scientists listed here:
    bibliography.html

    (continuing from the above discussion)

  341. ...in contributing to all that I have said and written (in addition to such as 'presents' itself from the Guy Upstairs!), has so included the very basic definition, of the difference between a BEC condensate of corporeality and a BEC condensate of incorporeality! A BEC condensate of corporeality, is a condensate in which spacetime is extant, everything is local and localized and non-unitary! Within such a condensate, all realities are both as experienced in the common spacetime for everyone, as well as those individual realities which can be created by an individual! Such is a condensate of corporeality, which exists as a mathematical and existential function of all applicable quantum particles and waves thereof (photons, bosons, fermions, quarks, etc.), as shall so contribute to the macromolecular realities as should exist therein! Two examples of corporeal condensates are: the universe, and a human being (brain and body)!

  342. In a condensate of incorporeality, as I have already noted, a quantum axion particle of consciousness... (which can ONLY exist within a condensate of incorporeality! And please NOTE: that when I say that an axion particle or wave, exists only within a condensate of incorporeality, that fact does NOT prevent that very same axion particle/wave FROM APPEARING WITHIN a condensate of corporeality, WHEN the 'parent' (OR 'twin'!) condensate of incorporeality ALSO APPEARS, or exists, within that corporeal condensate, as an INVISIBLE 'background', or underlying 'reality', OF that condensate of corporeality! An example of this is our Universe, as a condensate of corporeality and spacetime, in which a quantum axion particle would NOT EXIST! However, from another 'perspective', our quantum axion particle/waves DO EXIST, within the condensate of incorporeality of GOD, that invisible condensate which totally suffuses, penetrates, and EXISTS SIMULTANEOUSLY and unseen, WITHIN every condensate of corporeality!)

    (continuing from the above discussion)

  343. ...exists everywhere and is non-local and unitary! Actually, the very unitary-nature of an incorporeal condensate, is what actually creates the quantum axion particle! Because a condensate of incorporeality, in actually creating, or condensing, all the quantum forces/fields/gravities OF CORPOREALITY, and all the corporeal quantum entities thereof (bosons, photons, electrons, etc.), INTO a unitary condensate, HAS, FROM those corporeal quantum forces/fields/gravities/entities, actually 'created' the quantum axion particle/wave! In other words, the spacetime (and all forces/fields and such thereof!), of corporeality, HAS BEEN 'condensed', INTO a quantum axion particle of consciousness, which exists everywhere and is non-local! In other words, spacetime... such as the ENTIRE Universe!... exists within ONE quantum axion particle/wave! This is the reason that, as I have said, a quantum axion particle of consciousness, can 'create' spacetime! Because, in so 'creating' that spacetime, that SINGLE quantum axion particle, is merely 'releasing', or UN-condensing, or expanding, ALL of those quantum CORPOREAL forces/fields/gravities and entities, which were so 'captured' and 'condensed' INTO Unity, in that single axion particle of consciousness! Also, when an axion particle, incorporeality, or a condensate of incorporeality, does 'create' spacetime, or a condensate of corporeality, IT DOES SO WITH the very stipulation THAT, since EVERYTHING within that newly-created spacetime, i.e., ALL quantum forces/fields/gravities/quantum particles/waves/photons/electrons/atoms/molecules and all macromolecular things, has been brought into existence FROM incorporeality, or Spirit, or God, THEREFORE that very same incorporeality, that very same God, that very same Spirit, that very same Consciousness, that very same Dark Matter/Energy (whichever!), DOES ALSO, at the very same time and space (as our condensate of corporeal spacetime!), INFUSE, SUFFUSE, PENETRATE, and thoroughly and INVISIBLY, 'exist', SIMULTANEOUSLY, with and within, our condensate of corporeality! Again, as an example of this, we have the TWIN 'realities', existing simultaneously, of our Universe, and GOD! BOTH existing within the same spacetime or corporeality, but one of which can be seen (because it actually has spacetime!), and the other of which, God, which cannot be seen, because it is incorporeal, or Spirit, or Consciousness, which has NO spacetime!

  344. AND THIS IS THE REALITY of almost all 'dualities' in the Cosmos! THAT they exist as twins! A condensate of corporeality (which has been 'created' from, or by, a 'Parent' condensate of incorporeality!), and a condensate of incorporeality! One seen and the other 'unseen'! Existing simultaneously WITHIN THE EXACT SAME spacetime, one actually having spacetime, and the invisible 'twin', NOT actually having 'spacetime'! Actually, since the VERY SAME corporeal quantum forces/fields, etc., which have been brought into existence WITHIN that corporeal spacetime, FROM the incorporeality of the 'Parent' condensate of incorporeality, DO also 'contribute' TO the very existence OF the invisible 'twin' OF our condensate of corporeality, THEREFORE the SINGLE quantum axion particle/wave, of the 'twin' of our corporeal condensate, is actually THE SOURCE, OR the axion particle, from which our corporeal quantum forces/fields AND SPACETIME, actually came into existence FROM!

  345. Okay, let's continue here with examples! The universe HAS A TWIN! Well, not exactly a 'twin', or even a 'double'! Actually, in this case, because we are talking about the Ultimate Reality, the Most Infinite of Condensates (which could refer to either 'twin', except that the condensate of the Cosmos is 'greater' than the condensate of the Universe!), we can say that our condensate of Corporeality, the Universe, has a 'twin' which is both Parent AND 'Sibling-Twin'! Anyway, we can say that it has a 'Parent-Twin', which is actually the condensate of Incorporeality known as God! One twin is visible, the other invisible! One has spacetime (and thusly visibility!), the other has no spacetime, and is thusly invisible! One has the corporeal quantum forces/fields which are non-unitary and local, the other has the quantum axion particles/waves (from which the corporeal quantum forces/fields in the other 'twin' came from!), and is unitary (existing everywhere!) and non-local (having no spacetime!)

  346. Now, not to really leave out any other of our many infinitudes of 'dualities' or 'twins' in the Universe/Cosmos, let's go down the Scale of Life and give some lesser examples of our 'twins'! (Skipping the 'twins' of galaxies, pulsars, stars, planets, ants, bosons, etc., each of which has a 'twin', which is actually the invisible Dark Matter/Energy Consciousness of each of those Life-forms!) Actually, below the infinite level of God, each 'twin' condensates of Life that come into existence, do so FROM the next higher or greater condensate or condensates, which are its actual 'Parents', contributing TO both of the condensates that are 'created' as a single entity or Life-form, having a corporeal, or visible twin, and an incorporeal, or 'invisible twin'! So, the next set of 'twins' that we will examine is... the human being! Yes! One twin is corporeal, and has spacetime, which consists OF the human brain and body! The other 'twin' is incorporeal, and does not have spacetime, is invisible, and is the Consciousness of the human MIND!

  347. But actually here, we find an 'anomaly', or something different! Both twins were created from the Parents condensate(s), as well as from Spirit, or the Infinite Condensate of God! In the genetics of the human being, as I have said previously and on the pages of the QUFD website, Incorporeality (the Parents plus Spirit!), gives birth to the genes of the new human being, which genes, in turn, create BOTH of the 'twins' that come into existence, the corporeal twin (with the spacetime of the brain and body!), and the incorporeal 'twin' (with the no-spacetime of Consciousness, i.e, the Mind!) But here is where the 'anomaly' exists! Because, the very fact of the 'matter' IS... is that the human Mind is LOCAL, even though it exists within the non-locality of Infinite Consciousness (God), which is EVERYWHERE!

  348. Actually, there is no problem here, in that, again, it is 'perspective' or context! Each human Mind is 'local', relative TO its 'twin', or the corporeal brain/body, which that incorporeal 'Mind' services! But, this incorporeal 'twin', known as the 'local human Mind', is actually a fully-incorporeal condensate, of unitary and non-local no-spacetime, which is comprised of quantum axion particles/waves of Consciousness (from which the corporeal quantum forces/fields of the spacetime condensate of brain/body of the corporeal twin, actually came from!) which EXIST EVERYWHERE IN THE COSMOS, as opposed to the quantum particles/waves of it's corporeal twin, which quantum forces/fields ONLY EXIST within the corporeal spacetime reality OF that brain and body!

  349. Okay, Richard, with that, the foregoing discussion and definitions, I have thusly tried to put forth my understanding and knowing of ONLY those two basic terms and realities... everywhere and non-local, as defined by the quantum physics that I know and understand! If we do not have agreement on what I have said here, I don't know whether we can continue on to any further basic examinations of Incorporeality and Consciousness/Spirit!

    Sincerely,
    Jerome

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "RICHARD" yanniru@harvard.alumni.net
    To: "Father Jerome FIWD" fatherjerome@fiwd.org
    Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 4:54 PM
    Subject: Re: Starting over???

    Father Jerome,

  350. I agree that we are reaching diminishing returns. However, we are both stubborn in regard to the truth. And so I will not quit until you say 'Uncle' even more clearly.

  351. So I am happy to see your definition of two key terms:

  352. "unitary (existing everywhere!) and non-local (having no spacetime!)"

  353. You will forgive my assumptions that what you meant by unitary and non-local was the same as in ordinary corporeal quantum physics. From now on, whenever I see the words non-local or unitary, in my mind I will substitute 'having no spacetime' and 'existing everywhere'.

  354. However, even then I am confused by the following quote:

  355. "The universe is, granted, a single condensate of corporeality and spacetime, and it is visible and known"

  356. As far as I can tell, spacetime is invisible and more than a single corporeal condensate exists in the universe. It seems you have said as much elsewhere. But then you say:

  357. "it is a condensate of corporeal quantum particles and waves"

  358. My confusion becomes even more complete, as you have stated many times that waves are always incorporeal. Then to make my confusion even greater, you seem to say that there is only one axion in the universe. Here is the quote:

  359. "the spacetime (and all forces/fields and such thereof!), of corporeality, HAS BEEN 'condensed', INTO a quantum axion particle of consciousness, which exists everywhere and is non-local! In other words, spacetime... such as the ENTIRE Universe!...exists within ONE quantum axion particle/wave!"

  360. So then I resign in utter chaos when you add:

  361. "Existing simultaneously WITHIN THE EXACT SAME spacetime, one actually having spacetime, and the invisible 'twin', NOT actually having 'spacetime'!"

  362. That is a kind of existence I cannot comprehend.

  363. At least you seem to concede that there is one spacetime for the whole universe. But now there is but one axion particle for the whole universe. This must be what physicists mean to be the God particle.

  364. So perhaps it is time to cease and desist. You do not respond to my logic, [for example my argument that universal time is semi-infinite, rather dismissing my references to Christianity,] and I am totally confused by almost everything you say. You explain that as the adoption of words from biology to explain computers. But you rarely define new uses of old words when doing so. Non-local does not mean 'no spacetime' in physics. Non-local means quantum coherence over distances. It implies the existence of spacetime.

  365. But it is no use arguing with you. You think electric and magnetic signals are not photons. So be it. I have learned that nothing I can say will ever change your mind.

  366. Let's just stop.

    Richard

    (3/27 5:26 PM From Jerome)

    Richard

  367. Well, I am most Sorry to see you give up, Richard, as I was certainly not willing to, as we did, however most slowly, seem to be coming to agreement, piece by piece, on things of substance!

  368. And I was also most glad to have your 'review' of my viewpoint and 'vision' of Incorporeality, Spirit and God! You were surely teaching me of the difficulties that the very comprehension of God and Incorporeality bring for most people, not even the 'common man' and not only the intelligent man, but even a scientific person such as yourself! Those are difficulties that I will surely keep in mind, whenever I might receive any future questions concerning aspects of QUFD.

  369. I will continue to Serve Christ and God and the Holy Spirit/Incorporeality, as I have and as I can, from the scientific perspective of the Most Ancient Order of the OA/OWB, as presented on the QUFD website and Textbook. If you ever again might have a question or a thought, I most certainly shall welcome your inquiry!

  370. May I Wish You the Best, On Your Journey, Richard, However and Wherever it Dost Lead Thee!

    Sincerely, Aum, Peace, Amen
    Namaste
    Jerome
    Father Jerome, OA/OWB
    D.Th.(In Esse-the Theology of Reality), D.Sc.(Quantum Physics)
    Father Jerome USA,
    Author of the world-renown 'textbook-on-the-Web'
    (listed in the TOP 1% of worldwide websites),
    the QUFD (Quantum Unitary Field Dynamics) website, at:
    http://go.to/QUFD
    An Affiliate of the
    Freedom, Independenace & World Democracy (FIWD) Institute,
    London (OA/OWB)

    (End of latest messages)

    Aum, Peace, Amen
    Jerome



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