KARL JASPERS FORUM

SHORT NOTE 53

A FEASIBLE MODEL OF THE AETHER
by Adrian van der Meijden
14 June 2004, posted 31 July 2004

<0>
also called the sea of energy, ZPE field, Pre-Planckian level, ?chaos?, random, the 4th Dimension that enters change to the static 3D space model and which Einstein changed to fit time as a process, though he failed to think in dynamic process terms' and possibly the electro-magnetic level of the action. As a process it comes down to four levels, viz:

(1) Instigation or beginning proposed by QTheory as consciousness that shapes by

(2) morphogenesis which creates form shifting from the flux into the mechanoid aspect as

(3) a process or action of that 4th Dimension, hence called time which yields

(4) Appearance and reality of space filled with objects as for the senses.

Descartes admitted he could not find a relation between mind or reality and appearances or matter or objects in space. This was treated to become the material mono-hypothesis by ignoring reality and confining observation to only with the senses, later modified to be called instrumental when observation begun beyond what the senses could detect. That, in observation of what happened with particles, revealed that we could match beginning and end of the observational action, but not the intermediate changes where particles did weird things like jumping backwards in time, moving altogether out of time and space to change their appearance into different particles. Further this showed that particles vs waves phemonenon renamed into wavicles that finally could not be fitted into the continuum, before time and space. Levels 1 - 3 are totally ignored and for all I know there might be more or various sublevels entailed. If anything KJ's 0-D should fit before these four, when, so to speak, the Creator rested or was passive or only conscious as St Augustine had it. We should realise that all the data discovered and postulated, compacted together here in a thought experiment, arrived AFTER KJ made his remarks which showed that at HIS time he was well up with the play but he could hardly include what came for his future. If Aristotle were to come into our world he'd say worse than Einstein's spooky action at a distance or weird.

This, altogether, is my general beef with quoting authorities and then ignoring what we learnt since they existed. Here I attempt a synopsis of what this amounts to, as up do date as I can make it. This post was the one to which I added the "joke" as a PS in a later comment "The joke is that I collapsed all specialities into a single image, to the best of my ability and then, I hope, that shows the immense problem of teasing it apart into something sensible.

All together it raises issues about creativity, imagination and visualisation and how it is independent of our senses.

<1>
Lyall Watson in "Gifts of Unknown Things" reckons Puthof and Targ have an explanation for this in Walker, Puthof & Targ, a chapter in Edgar MITCHEL'S "PSYCHIC" exploration", Putnam, New York, 1974. The metaphor is that in the hologram, waves put forth bi-refringe between past and future to which we are sensitive. This includes findings of Chladni figures and beyond. Watson puts forward the idea that all our senses are to detect information at a distance and suggests some people are sensitive to this. Such folk tend to have synaesthesia of the senses. It reminds me of Dunne's experiments with time were he found we have past and future dreams in a pattern that resembles the Bell Curve of Distribution but expressed in terms of waves that interfere like pebbles thrown in a pond, which was used an an image by Walther von der Vogelweide in the 12th Century. It's a muddle of mixed metaphors that intimate a search for the apt metaphor we have not found yet but it seems the Russians may have as that DNA comes in holographic form. This makes better sense of the USA "junk DNA". Gariyev used this to change a chicken into a duck. In SF mode this presages Star gates redolent of ancient notions about caves, etc., as entries to another world.

<2>
Given the hologram it is obvious that both past and future mutually affect the present and if so this can be detected; the opposites in mutual feedback again when tackled linear fashion. If you can sort of look beyond the metaphors it fits. Pre-cognition exists and therefore co-cognition exists therefore all information is locally available and from which it also follows that the strictly local is a piece of nonsense. It all offends against the taboo of knowing at a distance. It is rather amusing that science treats the senses as strictly local. Given those waves are actually spirals they corkscrew into nice knots that appear as solitions being objects. And if they are spirals we'd have to hoik in Chaos theory, as an inapt metaphor for those points in a hologram only looking like points at their greatest density. IOW "things" having edges just ain't true as Mandelbrot shows when asking "How long is the Coast of England?". It looks more like those bugs that walk on water, their footprints a kind of dimple in the surface of things, deeper in the middle and compensating with a little hillock just around it, making out it is a kind of edge whereas it is only an effect of its balancing trick, performed on the surface tension of water. Should we pour detergent on the water the bug would drown. It is also an image of the impact of meteors. Our senses make that out as an edge. Contrariwise sensitives see it as an aura. And since I can anticipate the arrival of people worse than a dog getting excited before its owner arrives I have a fancy I do it too with events. Optics has a word for the light foci of lenses that also fade out around their edges. penumbra, I think. In "god" language it means the creator made this world to serve as his memory and being infinite it makes a never ending story to include creativity.

Once we get a sensible explanation of this the complications in this lot will go away. Basically my contention here is that all paradox and conundrums can only attach to our world of appearances and knowledge since, by definition - which could be incorrect - the Creator cannot harbour inconsistencies. Being infinite inconsistencies of the binary logic type are irrelevant. Using the unconscious metaphor the unconscious has to do things of a same kind. So for all I know the gods are personified metaphysical projections of ancient man of unconscious functions that failed a fit into the sensory, conscious mind, but which shows up these days as schizophrenia and all that. Schizophrenia is held to be a pathology only relative to the socially stereotyped, "averaged" intellect, oops "cognitive mind" and which T. Szasz and others rightly tells us is a social fiction. Any psychiatrist can check this out in the "Handbook to Psychiatric Disorders" where socially anomalous behaviours are deemed pathological and which leads to Laing's objection about "One flew over the Cukoo's Nest", as institutionalised brainwashing, or "re-normalisation".

<3>
It also sort of comes together by way of interpretations of what one is not told but which rings so loudly because without it what is being told makes no sense. Given an insufficiency of knowledge it comes out as fantasy, ringing bells one cannot see, but given a less tight expectancy of what is the case or allowed to be *real* it comes as a kind of prophecy, vision or insight. And that again makes a goodly match to how we can tap over-unity or excess ZPE flux. Literalism, I am beginning to think of as a disease. It's the kind of thing that makes all the animals rush away from a fire in the forest that has not fired off yet, but soon will as it makes dogs bark at things we don't see. I can remember living near a local lover's lane and watching the dog look at a car driving past the house into lover's lane as if the walls of the room do not exist. It makes sensible that dogs can find their owners lost over 1500 miles away. We have more and other access than the five external senses.

<4>
For another one I'd like to know how i can dream up things I cannot possibly have read or experienced before. A few days ago the word "roschetaenge" came to me in a dream. I tested it on German and 'taenge' means seaweed, but 'rosche' the dictionary does not carry, so it's probably slang or a local dialect for a kind of seaweed. My feeling of it is that it means red, if so it's a deep water seaweed, apt metaphor for how it grows. Coleridge describes it as coming from depths unknown and there is no word for it in English. For all I know it's not German?? Dictionaries of slang and dialects are not available to me. Kekule so dreamt up the structure of the benzene ring molecule and which led to molecular research. Tesla dreamt up our entire a.c. electricity system and even went for wireless transmission still awaiting implementation. It also is suggestive of how poetry relies on combinations of ambiguous words by "metaphysical conceits" combined into what also makes sense other than science. Altogether it implies a shift into the participant experient. Unless we can so model something better than the sea of energy or flux we won't be able to extend our knowledge. As Eddington wrote, "...in the future mystic and scientist will meet, coming from opposite ends of the universe", and Isaac Asimov had great fun with that idea. Asimov and A. C. Clarke show one can be both scientist and literati. This is also a demonstration of how our mind can shape insights well beyond the limits of our external senses and which, all considered, is a regular occurrence for the body of our knowledge. Feynman wanted to "read the mind of god". By overstuffing one's memory one's "unconscious" goes to work in the background and emerges with a form or pattern that makes whole sense of it all and which to intellect is "weird". Some people can do this deliberately.

----------------------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden