Abandoning space to find infinity

Einstein’s relativity is fully compatible with a much more flexible
definition of space. Several threads in physics indeed imply that
a rethinking of space is necessary to move forward: the persistent
ambiguity of the observer in Quantum Theory (QT), the nonzero
vacuum energy implied by cosmological observations, and the
breakdown of general relativity on small scales, to name a few. To
this we may add the unsettling fact that space as perceived by biological consciousness remains a domain apart, and remains one of
the most poorly understood natural phenomena.
To those who assume Einstein’s development of special relativity necessitates the reality of external, independent “space” (and
likewise assume the reality of an absolute separability of objects,
what quantum theory calls locality, and rest the concept of space on
this basis) we must emphasize once again that to Einstein himself,
space is simply what we can measure using the solid objects of our
experience.

Rather than spend half a dozen pages here with a more
technical exposition of how relativity’s results are equally obtained
without any need for an objective, external “space,” see Appendix 2,
which describes special relativity’s postulates in terms of a fundamental field and its properties. Doing so, we have unseated space
from its privileged position. As science becomes more unified, it
is to be hoped that we can explain consciousness as well as idealized physical situations, following the current threads of quantum
mechanics that have made it clear that the observer’s decisions are
closely linked to the evolution of physical systems.
Although consciousness may eventually be understood well
enough to be described by a theory of its own, its scaffolding is
clearly part of the physical logic of nature, that is, the fundamental

grand unified field. It is both acted on by the field (in perceiving

external entities, experiencing the effects of acceleration and gravity,
etc.) and acts on the field (by realizing quantum mechanical systems, constructing a coordinate system to describe light-based relationships, etc.).
Meanwhile, theorists of all stripes struggle to resolve the contradictions between quantum theories and general relativity. While
few physicists doubt that a unified theory is attainable, it is clear that
our classical conception of space-time is part of the problem rather
than part of the solution. Among other nuisances, in the modern
view objects and their fields have blurred together in what seems to
be an eternal game of peek-a-boo. In the modern view according to
quantum field theory, space has an energy content of its own and
a structure that is very quantum mechanical in nature. Science is
increasingly finding that the boundary between object and space is
growing ever fuzzier.


Moreover, experiments in quantum entanglement since 1997
have called into question the very meaning of space and ongoing
questions as to what these entangled-particle experiments mean.
There are really only two choices. Either the first particle communicates its situation far faster than the speed of light, indeed, with infinite speed, and using a methodology that totally escapes even our
most desperate guesses, or else there really is no separation between
the pair at all, appearances to the contrary. They are in a real sense
in contact, despite a universe of seemingly empty space standing
between them. Thus, these experiments appear to add yet another
layer to the scientific conclusion that space is illusory.
Cosmologists say that everything was in contact, and born
together, at the Big Bang. So even employing conventional imagery,
it may even make sense that everything is in some sense an entangled relative of every other, and in direct contact with everything
else, despite the seeming emptiness between them.
What, then, is the true nature of this space? Empty? Seething with energy and therefore matter-equivalent? Real? Unreal?
A uniquely active field? A field of Mind? Moreover, if one accepts

that the external world occurs only in Mind, in consciousness, and
that it’s the interior of one’s brain that’s cognized “out there” at this
moment, then of course everything is connected with everything
else

tmz

Biocentrizmus

Csüngés a rendszercsecsen

Amikor arról írnak a médiában, hogy a klímaváltozásnak tudható be lényegében a Margit-híd hetekre való lezárását eredményező ciklon, olyankor biztosan tudni lehet, hogy valami iszonyatos disznóságra készülnek. A fatüzelésű kályhákkal éppen annyi gond van a tudományosnak hazudott narratíva szerint, mint akár a tehénszellentéssel, és éppen ugyanolyan mértékben betiltandók. Valójában ezerkilencszáznegyvenöt óta több, mint ezer termonukleáris […]

Read More
Biocentrizmus

A kereszt, szolipszizmus

Egy írás nem olyan régen arról számolt be, hogy hogy a kereszt, mint a kereszténység fő szimbóluma és jelképe, energiákat blokkoló entitás. Blokkolja a szeretet és szubsztanciájukat tekintve pozitív energia áramlásokat. Ezért hát a kereszt ezen interpretáció szerint, valamint azért, hogy minden ember vegye tudomásul, neki szenvednie kell ebben az életben. Hiszen így is szól […]

Read More
Biocentrizmus

Láncaink elkobzása

Néhány szót én is hozzá szólnék a telefonelkobzásokhoz. A régi időkben sem lehetett drogot és pornót behurcolni az iskolákba, vagyis lényegében semmi sem változott. Lehet szidni a mobiltelefonok kitiltására vonatkozó törvényt, de meg lehet közelíteni ezt a kérdést mondjuk egy kicsit gyakorlatiasabban is. Például gondoljunk csak arra, elég szomorú, hogy a mobiltelefonok használata, az idegrendszerre […]

Read More