|
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
 Posted - 04/05/2012 : 11:44:28
|
Hello all,
We already had discussion about Stephen M Phillips,who claims to find correlation between superstring theory,kaballah and theosophy.You know my deep dislike about the notion of "shadow matter" and "subtle bodies",especially where 2 goes together.This is what Phillips try to reconcile.The reason I opened the new thread is that I don't want to put your attention to WHOLE article(which was the point of previous article).I'll post just one piece of the article,that bothers me right now,and then will post how I try to deal with it,hoping for your help.So,please,don't read the whole article,read only the part 6 is named "The UPA as a 11-brane".
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html
I must honeslty say that I don't understand much of what he say,because to I'm not so godo in neither superstring theory nor in kaballah/theosophy.But I tried to find some points in what he say,that are clearly speculatuive or not scientific.I will mark in bold the points that bother me and how I try to deal with it
So,let me start:
"Up till now, theorists have had to define ordinary and shadow matter as singlet representations of the other’s unified gauge symmetry group because they could not explain why the gauge symmetry group E8 appears twice in the symmetry group describing superstring forces free of quantum anomalies. My theory provides a natural explanation of why these two kinds of matter appear in superstring theory: an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space. The former creates an ordinary matter superstring; this is the UPA with its ten whorls. The latter creates a shadow matter superstring, which is predicted to comprise five whorls."
Problem: seems just assertion.Can his claim about "an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space." be proven? Doesn't it seem as just assertion without evidence?
Then he goes into long talk about how "ultimate physical atom" corresponds to the "tree of life " of kaballah,but let focus on this:
"If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct, then equations 3 and 9 indicate that the shadow matter superstring with five whorls created by the alternative wrapping of a 11-brane around the curled-up dimensions of S×C should have two, not three, major whorls. The significance of this may be that the three major whorls of the UPA correspond to the Supernal Triad of Kether, Chokmah and Binah, or what Theosophists call the three ‘Logoi’ (in Christian parlance — but not in Christian interpretation — the ‘Holy Trinity’ or ‘Three Persons of the Godhead’). This means that the second major whorl corresponds to the Second Logos, the so-called ‘Outpouring’ from which is the life-force that Hindus call ‘prana,’ whilst the interpretation in Section 10 of shadow matter as etheric matter means that the superstring predicted to have five whorls is the basic unit of etheric matter, the pranic energy contained within which may be one of the energy-fields of the shadow matter superstring. Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness — the etheric body, not its outer shell, which is assembled from superstrings of ordinary matter by means of the form-building forces that have their source in Fohat."
1.If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct - big if indeed
2.Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness — the etheric body, not its outer shell
How can he know that?Doesn't seem that just assertion without solid foundation?
Also,we can claim that all these claims are unfalsifiable.
This is how I try to deal with it,trying to find reasons not to take it as something serious and true.
I know it sounds strange,but it seems like this guy "forces" me to accept what he is writing but I try to "counter" him...
So,any thoughts?
Any help will be appreciated
Thank you
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 12:31:24 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry that I'm not going to be of much use, but here's some brief thoughts:
String "theory" is a mathematical proto-science. When/if it grows up, if it behaves itself, it may become a scientific theory. Maybe. I understand that right now, there are dozens of incompatible versions of string theory, none of which is yet in principle falsifiable. (But don't trust me on this, I can't even do simple arithmetic in my head.) So I'll pass on string theory on the basis of my own incompetence.
Kabbalah is a form of bizarre but ancient Jewish mysticism. As such, it is almost totally unrelated to the real world. I pass.
Theosophy is a mystical religion that combines elements of just about all the other religions and mystical beliefs. I've had long talks with a Theosophist, who spend hours talking about nothing at all. I'll pass on that, too.
Off hand, I'd say pay no attention to Kabbalah or Theosophy. There's no there there. Just walk away. And be wary of string "theory," super- or otherwise.
Sorry again, but some stuff is just too much of a headache, or too full of shit, for me to deal with. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 12:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm sorry that I'm not going to be of much use, but here's some brief thoughts:
String "theory" is a mathematical proto-science. When/if it grows up, if it behaves itself, it may become a scientific theory. Maybe. I understand that right now, there are dozens of incompatible versions of string theory, none of which is yet in principle falsifiable. (But don't trust me on this, I can't even do simple arithmetic in my head.) So I'll pass on string theory on the basis of my own incompetence.
Kabbalah is a form of bizarre but ancient Jewish mysticism. As such, it is almost totally unrelated to the real world. I pass.
Theosophy is a mystical religion that combines elements of just about all the other religions and mystical beliefs. I've had long talks with a Theosophist, who spend hours talking about nothing at all. I'll pass on that, too.
Off hand, I'd say pay no attention to Kabbalah or Theosophy. There's no there there. Just walk away. And be wary of string "theory," super- or otherwise.
Sorry again, but some stuff is just too much of a headache, or too full of shit, for me to deal with.
|
Actually it was very usefull HalfMooner,thank for the response |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 14:50:35 [Permalink]
|
Alexander1304 Holy Guacamole! What did I just read???? My eyes are glazed over, my hearing is muffled and I've got a bit of a headache coming on. Is this the same "Mr. Phillips" who use to work for General Motors and did a training video explaining their revolutionary automatic transmission, "The Turbo Entabulator" ?? Maybe they're one in the same. I'm sorry I can't be of more help, this shit is way over my head when taken seriously and I suspect everyone else.
Oh! I do have one other thought that you might not have considered and just might be of help if your open to it. You termed this as,,, in the thread's title line. What if it's total, 100% "woo"?? How does "Part 6" appear when examined under that light? Good luck to you Al' on this. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 19:26:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
String "theory" is a mathematical proto-science. When/if it grows up, if it behaves itself, it may become a scientific theory. Maybe. I understand that right now, there are dozens of incompatible versions of string theory, none of which is yet in principle falsifiable. (But don't trust me on this, I can't even do simple arithmetic in my head.) So I'll pass on string theory on the basis of my own incompetence. |
I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll second that somewhat. It's an attempt to build a mathematical model to fit the observations we've seen and matches the theories in which we're more confident, which ends up being extremely complicated. There's a great deal of work to find an approach that gives us the right configuration of the ideas to generate testable predictions.
The complexity of this really makes it nearly impossible to argue with non-physicists because they really don't understand (and neither do I).
A truly amazing thing about it is that there were quite a lot of string theory offshoots that looked at the ideas drastically different within some string theoretic line of reasoning, but the scientists found their models were actually nearly equivalent if looked at from a different vantage point (they would say they found "symmetries"), and so the phrase M-theory was coined to be the united version these various research lines that converged. So this at least ensures a good sense of internal consistency after uniting these very different lines of research.
From Phillips' article, I can say with confidence much of section 1 is nonsense. The triangular numbers have nothing special to do with relativity -- the fact that the space-time from relativity (Minkowski space, for special relativity really) is in 4 dimensions and some of the string models are in 10 dimensions (although most models are 11 dimensions now). Then he links this 4 and 10 to 550 because 1+2+3+4 = 10 and 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 55 and multiplying them together gives 550, which is blatantly idiotic and cherry picks completely unrelated ideas -- and unspectacular ones at that, I mean it's an exceedingly simple task to prove 1+2+...+n = n(n+1)/2 for any n, so anyone's free to go crazy and find a way to make it turn into some relationship with a number they think has some significance. To suggest this is somehow meaningful with respect to Pythagorean mathematics, or any other coherent thought, is also without cause. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/05/2012 19:34:24 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 22:14:23 [Permalink]
|
I understand what's going on with string theory a tiny bit better, now, Mach. Thanks.
One very important thing about it that I neglected to mention is that it's part of the effort to create the long-sought "unified field theory" or "theory of everything" and to reconcile Einstein's General Relativity theory (which works marvelously well in the macro-universe) with quantum theory (which works at the micro- scale). Right now, one must deal in either Einsteinean or quantum physics using completely separate sets of formulae, a situation that is offensive to physicists and makes everyone else that knows about it pretty uncomfortable. Intuition is telling people that there must be a better way of doing this.
One of the most importance goals of this hoped-for theoretical unification is being able to unify our understanding of "... gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism."
This makes the search a most valuable and important one, so at least the motivation for string theory is good. And I still understand the process almost not at all. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 22:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Alexander1304
Actually it was very usefull HalfMooner,thank for the response
|
I am shocked, shocked, I say, that my words may have in any manner been useful. But thanks for the kind words. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 05:12:49 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for the responses.But I found something more.Let's say that UPA consist of 10 whorls of ordinary matter.His equation of 3:3:4,that first 3 matches one triad in some level of "tree of life"(don't remember exactly what),and second 3 matches some other triad,and 4 matches some quaterly - well,it seems at least that this can be manipulated |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 05:15:08 [Permalink]
|
| I've read some books by paranormal researcher Alan Gauld,who is very open-minded and non-dogmatic person.I sent him this article and his response was very short: "The chap is off his trolley.Don't waste good time on him" |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 05:16:03 [Permalink]
|
| Let me guess, some kind of Zionist attempt to shoe-horn hard science into a vague, flimsy framework? |
 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 06:05:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Alexander1304
I've read some books by paranormal researcher Alan Gauld,who is very open-minded and non-dogmatic person.I sent him this article and his response was very short: "The chap is off his trolley.Don't waste good time on him"
|
That is some great advice, you only live once, no time for the crazies. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 08:15:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm sorry that I'm not going to be of much use, but here's some brief thoughts:
String "theory" is a mathematical proto-science. When/if it grows up, if it behaves itself, it may become a scientific theory. Maybe. I understand that right now, there are dozens of incompatible versions of string theory, none of which is yet in principle falsifiable. (But don't trust me on this, I can't even do simple arithmetic in my head.) So I'll pass on string theory on the basis of my own incompetence.
Kabbalah is a form of bizarre but ancient Jewish mysticism. As such, it is almost totally unrelated to the real world. I pass.
Theosophy is a mystical religion that combines elements of just about all the other religions and mystical beliefs. I've had long talks with a Theosophist, who spend hours talking about nothing at all. I'll pass on that, too.
Off hand, I'd say pay no attention to Kabbalah or Theosophy. There's no there there. Just walk away. And be wary of string "theory," super- or otherwise.
Sorry again, but some stuff is just too much of a headache, or too full of shit, for me to deal with.
|
I'll jump on the Kabbalah bit. Kabbalah is a form of Jewish ritual magic. This is also used by some subsects of Neopaganism as a form of ceremonial magic. It is a meditation aid and ceremonial magic methodology whereby the adherent meditates on nodes within the "Tree of Life" made up of three pillars.
The top, Godliness concept is Kether. The material world is considered Malkuth.
The Kabbalistic Tree of Life also has a shadow element. As mostly the "work" being done is through the Tree of Life construct which is focused upon building new concepts and items, the shadow tree is focused on destruction. The shadow tree is considered the same as dark magic.
Now, what all of this has to do with the real world...... bupkiss, nada, the big goose egg, pffffffffft.
Source: 777 by Alister Crowley
There is a reversal of two of the meanings on the Kabbalistic Tree of Life in that book. One that an experienced user of the ceremonial magic form would pick out immediately. This is common in neo-pagan ceremonial books. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 20:33:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I understand what's going on with string theory a tiny bit better, now, Mach. Thanks. |
No problem! Anyway, this got me thinking and I looked in my copy of Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design to recall how he explained the concept. Clearly much of modern physics has gone way over most everyone's head, including mine, because the ideas are so counter-intuitive compared to the things we experience. Since this is the case, it's very difficult for us to determine what the simplest explanation is for certain phenomena -- as we can build very different models that both make correct predictions, but we have no way to determine which is simpler necessarily, as different approaches seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. So, Hawking says, we're free to choose whichever model is most convenient for the task at hand, as intuitiveness is not a valid judge of simplicity or effectiveness.
To me, this seems to dodge the whole issue of Occam's razor because we just can't quantify simplicity because our sense of simplicity is so bound up within our experience. It's really just a rule of thumb anyway, but in this area of science, it seems to become rather weak out of necessity -- hence, the claims physicists are making stuff up, typically unfairly. (Often from people who are rather dogmatic and so expect scientists to be also, but scientists are much more tentative about claims.)
This is how many different theories emerge and in some cases have been shown to actually all work well for some things, and with M-theory, they found some strands that connect some quite different approaches together.
One very important thing about it that I neglected to mention is that it's part of the effort to create the long-sought "unified field theory" or "theory of everything" and to reconcile Einstein's General Relativity theory (which works marvelously well in the macro-universe) with quantum theory (which works at the micro- scale). Right now, one must deal in either Einsteinean or quantum physics using completely separate sets of formulae, a situation that is offensive to physicists and makes everyone else that knows about it pretty uncomfortable. Intuition is telling people that there must be a better way of doing this.
One of the most importance goals of this hoped-for theoretical unification is being able to unify our understanding of "... gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism." |
Here, Hawking says we can't give a definitive answer about whether M-theory can be considered any sort of ultimate theory of everything, but it's the only theory that has much support that seems to have everything we think such a theory should have.
He goes on to say it's not really a unified theory (maybe I overstated this before), it's more like a family of theories where each one describes some range of phenomena very well, but they share a string theoretic basis in some way or another, though the symmetries that emerged were unexpected and provided some links between them, so he says there is reason to group them. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/06/2012 20:42:45 |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2012 : 07:20:42 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the reponses guys.
Also : at the beginnig of the chapter 6 he 2 times states "my theory".It may mean ,that he not just "builds" on mainstream but adds something from himself."In my theory, n = 11 and the 15-dimensional space has the form:
15 = S×C×C', "
and
"My theory provides a natural explanation of why these two kinds of matter appear in superstring theory: an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space"
By the way,to me,at lest,these look like somewhat abritrary claims,and consideration of higher,15-dimensional space appears to be pretty speculative |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2012 : 07:54:31 [Permalink]
|
| Pfft, MY theory goes to 11! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2012 : 09:28:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Pfft, MY theory goes to 11!
|
That's why you lose so many drummers. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Need some help with dealing with apparent "woo"
