Thanks Lonnie. This is an excellent and descriptive article, which one can comment upon on many viewpoints.

Those viewpoints then will by necessity become filtered by the individual perceiver/observer/thinker about the 'thing'.

Thank you very much Lonnie for sharing this. It allows me to add commentary in a manner, which hopefully will be comprehensible by most.

I would say, that you should gain some valueable insights in regards to your quest and queries reading my reply.

So the following then is my (to what extent remains questionable relative to the reader of course) informed opinion on the matter.

Allow me to intersperse in italic.

Reality and Consciousness: Turning the Superparadigm Inside Out - by
Peter Russell

Thomas Kuhn coined the term "paradigm" to refer to the beliefs and
assumptions that underlie a particular science. But beneath all our
scientific paradigms lies an even deeper and more pervasive
assumption. It is the belief in the primacy of the material world.
When we fully understand the world of space, time and matter, we
will, it is held, be able to account for everything in the cosmos.
Being the paradigm behind all our scientific paradigms, this
worldview has the status of a "superparadigm".

Eminently successful as this model has been at explaining the world
around us, it has very little to say about the non-material world of
mind.

TonyB.: I fully agree with Russell here. This idea of the 'primacy of the material world' represents the core of the materialistic paradigm and is imo doomed to failure.

It falls apart straight away in my view, as this 'superparadigm' absolutely demands a background of 'space and time' to function.

So the infant question of the 'cosmic child' as to 'where did space and time come from?' aka 'what made God?' aka 'what is beyond space and time?' etc. aka etc. can not be answered in any cosmology, which presumes the 'primordial atom' or 'cosmic egg' aka aka to be defined in the concept of mass or inertia (matter and antimatter are conjunct eigenstates for mass and so a secondary emergent phenomena).

The best the 'materialist' can do, is then to propose a 'Big Bang Singularity' out of which all this mass emerged and then manifested in say the thermodynamic cosmos of a Black Body Planck Radiator or such labelings.

But this runs into an insurmountable difficulty, as this 'singularity' CANNOT be made physical in its mathematical formalisms, say in the division by zero and/or infinity concepts.

So yes, the mass can be made emergent from 'energy' via Einstein's famous E=mc², but only if one now begins to differentiate this 'ancestral' energy as the precursor of all mass say, and this is actually the case in the standard models, which then propose a cosmology based on a so called masslessness of the gauges for the elementary interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic and strong- and weak nuclear).

It is from this (correct imo) concept, that the huhah about the 'Higgs-Boson' aka Lederman's 'God-Particle' etc. develops - how do the observed massive particles gain their mass content?

A further (imo correct) assumption of the standard models, then becomes the idea of the 'singularity', whilst mathematically possible and definable (say in what is called asymptotic approach); is PHYSICALLY SMEARED OUT. This means that there is a minimum scale for the physical measurements of say displacement, time, inertia, temperature, pressure etc; below which those same physical parameters would lose their identities - displacemant would be time and time would be mass and such stuff. Iow the mensuration definitions would all fail.

The standard models term this 'minimum - boundary - condition' the Planck-Scale. And the resolution of this leads to the string theories, the quantum loops of Smolin, the quantum foam of Lloyd, the holographic universe scenario of Susskind and Bekenstein, the Black Holes of Hawking and so on and on.

Ok, so to stop here (the quantum cosmology of QR, which builds on the assumed correctness of the basics of the standard models, is explained ad nauseum elsewhere) and to address 'Russell's Mind'.

Nothing in the physical sciences predicts the phenomenon of
consciousness. Yet its reality is apparent to each and every one of
us. As far as the current superparadigm is concerned consciousness is
a great anomaly.

When paradigm anomalies first arise they are usually overlooked or
rejected. Or, if they cannot be so easily discarded, they are
incorporated in some way, often clumsily, into the existing model.
Witness the attempts of medieval astronomers, wedded to Plato's
belief in the perfection of circular motion, trying to explain
irregularities in planetary motion with theories of epicycles
(circles rolling along circles).

Western science has followed a similar pattern in its approach to
consciousness. For the most part it ignored consciousness completely.
More recently, as developments across a range of disciplines have
shown that consciousness cannot be so easily sidelined, science has
made various attempts to account for it. Some have looked to quantum
physics, some to information theory, others to neuropsychology. But
the failure of these approaches to make any appreciable headway into
the problem of consciousness suggests that they may be on the wrong
track.

All these approaches assume that consciousness somehow arises from,
or is dependent upon, the world of space-time-matter. In one way or
another they are trying to accommodate the anomaly of consciousness
within the materialist superparadigm. The underlying beliefs are
seldom, if ever, questioned.

When Newton proposed his laws of motion, he turned the problem of
what made things move into the foundation stone of his new paradigm;
objects continued to move unless acted upon by some external force.
When Einstein formulated his Special Theory of Relativity, he took
the problem of the constancy of the speed of light and made it an
axiom of the new model. I believe we need to do the same with the
problem of consciousness. Instead of trying to explain consciousness
within the current superparadigm, we need to accept that
consciousness is as fundamental as matter-in some ways, more
fundamental. When we do we find that the key ingredients for a new
superparadigm are already in place; all we need to do is put them
together.

Tony B.: Yes, again I agree with Russell here. I would not go so far as to 'belittle' the medieval astronomers in say the Ptolemaic Universe of the epicycles. This serves as a valid approximation to the heliocentric cosmology, which supplanted it in a new understanding of celestial mechanics.

The anomaly of consciousness within the 'superparadigm' is no anomaly, but as Russell poignantly said; both Newton's first law and Einstein's c-invariance became new fundamental postulates for the advents of Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity respectively.

Russell has explained this wonderfully imo.

Consciousness cannot be explained without finetuning/extending the superparadigm.

It is then my position, that this can be done within a framework of a DEMETRICATED bosonic string scenario, which hitherto EXTENDS the standard cosmology.

Perception and Reality:

The key to this new model of reality is an understanding of how we
perceive reality. Advances in physics, psychology, and philosophy
have shown that reality is not what it seems.Take vision, for
example. When I look at a tree, light reflected from its leaves is
focused onto cells in the retina of my eye, where it triggers a
cascading chemical reaction releasing a flow of electrons. Neurons
connected to the cells convey these electrical impulses to the
brain's visual cortex, where the raw data is processed and
integrated. Then-in ways that are still a complete mystery-an image
of the tree appears in my consciousness. It may seem that I am
directly perceiving the tree in the physical world, but what I am
actually experiencing is an image generated in my mind.

The same is true of every other experience. All that I see, hear,
taste, touch, smell and feel has been created from the data received
by my sensory organs. All I ever know of the world around are the
mental images constructed from that data. However real and external
they may seem, they are all phenomena within my mind.

This simple fact is very hard to grasp; it goes against all our
experience. If there is anything about which we feel sure, it is that
the world we experience is real. We can see, touch and hear it. We
can lift heavy and solid objects; hurt ourselves, if we're not
careful, against their unyielding immobility. It seems undeniable
that out there, around us, independent and apart from us, stands a
physical world, utterly real, solid and tangible.

But the world of our experience is no more "out there" than are our
dreams. When we dream we create a reality in which events happen
around us, and in which we perceive other people as individuals
separate from us. In the dream it all seems very real. But when we
awaken we realize that everything in the dream was actually a
creation of our own mind.

The same process of reality generation occurs in waking
consciousness. The difference is that now the reality that is created
is based on sensory data and bears a closer relationship to what is
taking place in the real world. Nevertheless, however real it may
seem, it is not actually "the real world". It is still an image of
that world created in the mind.

Tony B.: Indeed, the material world is created in the perception of the conscious selfhood. And this selfhood differentiates in degrees in the so called waking state and the dreaming states.

Russell then correctly describes the link between the sensory perceptors of say (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling) with the biology and biochemistry of the superparadigm. But this simply shows how an organism say, has adapted environmentally in reductionist evolutionary and genetic terms as presently understood.

Russell nicely, differentiates then between the 'mapping' of the physical world to this 5-sensory perception as compared to the 'dreamstate'.

I myself am a great 'believer' in the 'reality of dreams', being a lucid dreamer (accentuated wrt my physical disability perhaps), who in some real manner prefers the 'dreaming experience' to the 'waking experience'.

Where I would slightly critisize Russell, is in his statement of all physical phenomena being images generated by the mind.

Of course, they are, but they are REAL IMAGES of the material - they become DATABASE and MEMORY for the say COMBINED or collective experiences of bot the 'waking- and the dreaming' consciousness.

And of course this is often anathema to the superparadigm and it is here that I would fully support Russell.

It is in scientific error, to dismiss, say the 'dreaming consciousness' as a kind of 'recuperance of the sleeping brain' or what have you.

The 'dreamstate' is equally valid to the 'waking state' - the 'mappings' of the memory functions are different.

When in the dreamstate, the brain is in REM-Mode (Rapid-Eye-Movement) at the alpha frequencies around the Schuman Frequencies for this planet (7.5 Hertz=Light circling the planet of 40,000 km 7.5 times say) and the body is in a state of 'paralysis' (I know a lot about that, suffering a neurological motor neuron disease HSP).

When 'waking' the body is not paralysed in  say beta frequencies up to so 30 Hz  and the consciousness ENGAGES the body motor dynamics and so the 5-sensory perceptions in consciousness.

The Two Realities:

It is important to distinguish between two ways in which we use the
word "reality". There is the reality we experience, our image of
reality; and there is the underlying reality that has given rise to
this experience. The underlying reality is the same for all
observers. It is an absolute reality. The reality I experience, the
reality generated in my mind, is a relative reality. It is relative
to my point of view, my past experience, my human senses and my human
brain.

The fact that we create our image of reality does not mean, as some
people misconstrue, that we are creating the underlying reality.
Whatever that reality is, it exists apart from our perception of it.
When I see a tree there is something that has given rise to my
perception. But I can never directly perceive this something. All I
can ever know of it is the image appearing in my mind.

Tony B.: This is true, but misses the point. Because there is an image, there must also be the imager, the object or thing 'causing' the image.

Ok then I agree with the concept of 'absolute reality, but this MUST imo be the same reality as that which created everything perceivable in spacetime and physicality per se.

When, two centuries ago, Bishop Berkeley proposed that we know only
what we perceive, his contemporaries debated whether or not a tree
falling in a forest made a sound if no one was there to hear it. From
what we now know of the psychophysiology of perception, we can say
the answer is "No". Sound is not a quality of the underlying reality.
There may be movements in the air, but the interpretation of those
movements as sound is something that happens in the mind - whether it
be the mind of a human being, a dog or a woodpecker.

Similarly with light. Whatever the tree is in physical reality, it is
not green. Light of various frequencies is reflected from the tree to
the retina of the eye, where cells respond to the amount of light in
three frequency ranges (the three primary colors). But all that is
passed back to the brain are electro-chemical impulses; there is no
color here. The green I see is a quality created in consciousness. It
exists only in the mind.

Tony B.: Ok again, but not deep enough imo. Of course the perception of the 'seeing' of the colour green can be reduced to biology, then to biochemistry and then to physics with the result that 'seeing green' must engage a FREQUENCY say as defined in Planck's Law for the 'ancestral now emerged energy' E=hf.

So can you see here where this is leading to?

The material reality is an image for the immaterial reality - it is as simple as that. Whatever is 5-sensory perceivable, must have an ancestor or say a SHADOW or a Doppelgaenger Identity. Scripts and movies have been composed around this concept and the Egyptian mythology is full of it as the monotheistic precursor for the world dominant religions and so on.

But ultimately, Russell is correct. The thing created in the mind is an image of the image of the image. The REAL THING is absolute as some mathematical expression of Platonic idealism say (not to be confused with say any physical reality for circular perfection or such - the perfection remains purely abstract, albeit logical).

This real thing (of say a mathematical identity) TRANSFORMS itself into something 'mapped' or projected as this in terms of Conservation Laws of angular- and linear momentum and of energy of course.

So the image of the image becomes say a subatomic particle in the quantum state or a molecule or macroscopic object in the classical state.

But here is the key. Because the REAL (ABSOLUTE) THING AS RUSSELL'S CONSCIOUSNESS becomes an IMAGE in what is called MATERIAL REALITY, the REIMAGING as the image of the image of the image becomes the REAL THING again in the individual perceiver consciousness.

So someone a little more adept than myself, can RUN WITH THIS realisation and solve the ageold problem of how to DEFINE PHYSICAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

Physical 5-sensory perception is IDENTICAL to the ABSOLUTE REALITY in IMAGINARY TERMS.

Spacetime simply becomes the MIRROR for the SELFREFLECTION of the Absolute in the Creation as the Image of Itself.

Most scoff at the alphanumeric encodings, calling them coincidental, spurious or whatever.

But relative to me, the following alphanumeric encoding of the Anglo-Hebrew synthesis is profound as it encapsulates all of what I have said above in a nutshell (and as noted on the introduction message of QR):  SPIRIT=91=SPACETIME=MIRROR for the code: A=1, B=2, C-3,...,X=24,Y=25,Z=26,A*=27...I*=35....

The same is true of our perception of distance. The pattern of light
that falls on the retina creates a two-dimensional image of the
world. The brain estimates distance by detecting slight differences
between data from the left and right eyes, the focus of the eyes,
relative movement, and past experience as to the likely size of a
tree. From this data it calculates that the tree is fifty feet away.
A three-dimensional image of the world is then created with the tree
placed "out there" in that world, fifty feet away. Yet, however real
it may seem, the quality of space and distance that we experience is
created in the mind.

Tony B.: Yes, but again, here the 'mathematics' as the absolute reality, say Neoplatonic- comes into play.


The Kantian Revolution:

Long before modern science knew anything about the processes of
perception or the structure of matter, the eighteenth-century German
philosopher Immanuel Kant had drawn a clear distinction between our
perception of reality and the actual object of perception. He argued
that all we ever know is how reality appears to us-what he referred
to as the phenomenon of our experience, "that which appears to be".
The underlying reality he called the noumenon, meaning "that which is
apprehended", the thing perceived.

At the time, Kant's arguments were a watershed in Western thinking.
They were, as Kant himself saw, the equivalent of a Copernican
Revolution in philosophy. Whereas Copernicus had effectively turned
the physical universe inside out, showing that the movements of the
stars are determined by the movement of the earth, Kant had turned
the epistemological world inside out, putting the self firmly back at
the center of things. We are not passive experiencers of the world;
we are the creators of the world we experience.

Because all we ever know is the product of the mind operating on the
raw sensory data, Kant reasoned that our experience is as much a
reflection of the nature of the mind as it is of the physical world.

This led him to one of his boldest and, at the time, most
astonishing, conclusions of all. Time and space, he argued, are not
inherent qualities of the physical world; they are a reflection of
the way the mind operates. They are part of the perceptual framework
within which our experience of the world is constructed.

Tony B.: Yes, the Kantian Universe of the centricity of the SELFOBSERVER becomes the simple process of this observer 'Looking into theMirror of SpaceTime'.


It seems absolutely obvious to us that time and space are real and
fundamental qualities of the physical world, entirely independent of
my or your consciousness-as obvious as it seemed to people five
hundred years ago that the sun moves round the earth. This, said
Kant, is only because we cannot see the world any other way. The
human mind is so constituted that it is forced to impose the
framework of space and time on the raw sensory data in order to make
any sense of it all.

Strange as Kant's proposal may have seemed then, and strange as it
may still seem to many of us today, contemporary science is proving
him right.

Spacetime:

The first significant scientific challenge to the assumption that
space and time are absolutes came in 1905 with Einstein's Special
Theory of Relativity. He showed that what we observe as space and
what we observe as time are but two aspects of a more fundamental
reality, which he called "the spacetime continuum". How much of this
continuum manifests as space, and how much manifests as time varies
from one observer to another, depending on their motion. Space and
time may appear to us to be fixed qualities, but that is because we
are not travelling at speeds close to that of light. If we did,
things would look very different.

Just what the spacetime continuum itself is like we never know.
Einstein agreed with Kant; all we ever know of the underlying reality
are the ways in which it appears as the two very different qualities
of space and time.

Tony B.: I disagree with the skeptism here. We already know, or some do.

The decoding of the spacetime continuum is precisely, what is envisaged in the modern cosmologies, inclusive the ones mentioned earlier and of course QR, which claims to have solved the mystery in the encompassment of the standard models.

There are THREE RELATIVITES - Special, General and Quantum (SR,GR,QR).

The SR describes spacetime transformations in a 4-vector, meaning the Minkowski spacetime for invariant lightpath x=ct for uniformly accelerated kinematics. An important concept from this is, that ANY MOTION in space MUST REDUCE motion in TIME, hereby defining the c-invariance. So only a perfect 'standing still' relative to the absolute, allows traveling in space at the speed of light.

{The only way out, is to engage the inflation mechanics of the Big Bang spacetimematter creation itself in so called de Broglie phases).

The GR describes spacetime as classical large scale geometric curvature of gravitation, so inferring the concept of mass as being part of spacetime and not just a constituent of it (as say in the equivalence principle).

QR builds on both SR and GR in DEMETRICATING spacetime completely and replacing it by a 'source energy' aka CONSCIOUSNESS of spacetime quanta themselves.

This means, that spacetime, whereever defined is SELFCONSCIOUS and allows whatever interacts with itself, also to become conscious in some manner, sharing the 'source energy'.

Although observers moving at different speeds may disagree on the
amounts of time and space separating two events, they do agree, no
matter how fast they may be moving, on the amount of spacetime
separating them - what Einstein called the "interval". It is a little
like cutting a string in two; cutting it in different places will
give pieces of differing lengths, but the total length of string will
always be the same. Similarly, any observation divides the spacetime
interval into a certain amount of time and a corresponding amount of
space, the exact proportions depending on the motion of the observer.
(With the difference that the mathematical formula for the
combination of space and time is not simple addition; it is more
like "space squared minus time squared.")

The "Speed" of Light:

In proposing his theory Einstein postulated that the speed of light
was a universal constant. However fast you may be travelling, you
will always measure the speed of light relative to you to be the same-
186,000 miles per second. You can never catch up with light. Even if
you were traveling at 185,990 miles per second, light would still
pass you by at 186,000 miles per second.

Why should this be so? It seems totally counter-intuitive that the
speed of light never varies. But this perplexing behavior takes on a
rather different character when we distinguish our image of reality
from the underlying reality. Space and time, and hence speed, are
aspects of the phenomenal world; they have no meaning, it turns out,
for light itself.

Tony B.: Very very true and explained by me in the above.


According to the equations of Special Relativity, as an observer's
speed increases, time slows down, and length (in the direction of
motion) contracts. At the speed of light, time has slowed to a
standstill and length contracted to zero. Although no object with
mass can ever attain the speed of light (the equations predict that
it would then have an infinite mass), light itself does (by
definition) travel at the speed of light. From light's point of view -
and this after all must be the most appropriate perspective from
which to consider the nature of light, not our matter-bound mode of
experience - it travels no distance and takes no time to do so.

This reflects a unique property of light. In the spacetime continuum,
the interval between the two ends of a light ray is always zero. How
can we interpret this? We probably should not even try to interpret
it. Any attempt to do so would make the mistake of applying concepts
derived from our image of reality to the underlying reality. All we
need to recognize is that, from light's perspective, this zero
interval manifests as zero space and a corresponding amount of zero
time.

However, when we in the world of sub-light speeds perceive light, we
see a different manifestation of the zero interval. We observe a
finite amount of space along with an "equal" amount of time. In our
world, the light does travel through space and time. Since the total
interval must be zero, the distance covered must exactly balance the
time taken - that is, we must always observe 186,000 miles of space
for every second of time. This we interpret as the speed of light.
But this "speed" is not an intrinsic property of light itself;
travelling no distance in no time, light has no need of speed.

What we interpret as the speed of light is actually the ratio in
which space and time manifest in our perception of reality. It is
this ratio that is constant. And this is why all our measurements of
the apparent speed of light are constant.

Tony B.: Yes, c=x/t=xf with frequency f as physical parameter defining inverse time. There is NO violation or 'misperception' of physical observers for the c-invariance however as the writer  seems to imply (just a little) in the above.

Wave-Particle Duality:

The fact that light itself knows no space or time resolves another
difficult conundrum. In our image of reality we observe light
traveling across space and time and so observe energy traveling from
the point of emission of the light ray to its point of absorption.
Naturally, we ask how the energy travels.

Is it a wave, or is it a particle?

The answer, it seems, is both. In some situations light behaves as a
continuous wave spreading out in space - but, curiously, a wave
without a medium. In other situations it behaves as a particle
traveling through space - but, equally curiously, a particle without
mass. Physicists have accommodated these two strange and seemingly
paradoxical conclusions by deciding that light is a "wave-particle."
In certain circumstances it appears as a wave; in others as a
particle.

But if we look at things from light's point of view, the reality is
very different. Since it did not travel through space and time, it
needed no vehicle or mechanism of travel. Light itself has no need to
be either a wave or a particle. From its own frame of reference -
which is probably the most appropriate frame of reference from which
to consider light - there is no duality, and no paradox.

The physicist's conundrum appears only when we mistake our image of
reality with the "thing in itself", and try to visualize light in
concepts and terms appropriate to our image of reality-that is, waves
and particles.

Tony B.: The author (Russell or Kant), here slightly misinterprets the wave-particle duality.

Yes, the absolute reality, can be described as the c-relativity. But this does not negate or diminish in any manner the relativity of the non-absolute observer, who for example measures the Lorentz-Contraction or Time-Dilation.

Relative to the absolute reference frame, LIGHT DOES NOT TRAVEL AT ALL, but forms the demetricated background for the Zero-Point-Energy and so the Heisenberg-Uncertainty-Matrix of ACTION.

But there is nothing 'virtual' about this LIGHTMATRIX as a Standing Wave or ETHER PRESPACE; reason for this is, that the ZPE is NOT based on matter-antimatter asymmetry, but on a supersymmetry of superstring transformations.

As (PRE)SPACE DOES NOT move in the matrix, there is no space to traverse and the duality of light and electromagnetic photons manifests as manifestations of the standing wave in 'coordinate points', which become the metrics in the relativities bounded in lightspeed c.

PRESPACE is defined in the inflation, which ends the superstring transformations into their metric manifestation in the physicality of the Big Bang. So then the material- and lightspeed bounded spacetime expands into lightspeed-constant prespace. This does in fact alter the standard model in some major aspects (which have been discussed many times before), in particular, it defines the 'Bounded Universe of Hawking' as an oscillatory or cyclic universe defined in a 'Hubble-Noded' Standing wave, say.

No matter:

A photon is a single quantum of action. We are all familiar with
quantities such as mass, velocity, acceleration, momentum and energy.
Action is just another member of this family, but not one that we
come across much in ordinary life. It is defined as the product of
momentum and distance travelled, or, equivalently, energy and time.
Thus the amount of action of speeding bullet is higher than the same
bullet travelling more slowly across the same distance. Double the
bullet's mass, and you get twice the action-which accords with our
intuitive concepts of action.

To speak of light as pure action is both appropriate and strange,
depending upon one's point of view. In the world we experience, the
world in which space and time exist, and light travels great
distances at unmatchable speed, light seems to be nothing but action.
It never rests; it never slows. From this frame of reference, action
seems a most appropriate quality.

From its own frame of reference, however, light never goes anywhere.
A photon covers no distance, and knows no time. Nor does it have any
mass. Strange then, that something without mass, space or time should
be the fundamental unit of action. Strange it may be; nevertheless,
that is the nature of the underlying reality. Once again, nothing
like what we expected. Nothing like the phenomenon generated in the
mind.

Tony B.: Amazingly, this is just what I have said above and as consequence of QR. Russell or Kant has engaged Quantum Relativity here.

Kant argued that space and time are characteristics not of the
noumenon, the underlying reality, but of the mind. Quantum theory
reveals that the same is true of matter. Matter is not to be found in
the underlying reality; atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty
space, and sub-atomic "particles" dissolve into fuzzy waves. Matter
and substance seem, like space and time, to be characteristics of the
phenomenon of experience. They are the way in which the mind makes
sense of the no-thing-ness of the noumenon.

Tony B.: I could not agree more with Immanuel here.


The Fabric of Reality:

When we speak of "the material world", we think we are referring to
the underlying reality, the object of our perception. In fact we are
only describing our image of reality. The materiality we observe, the
solidness we feel, the whole of the "real world" that we know, are,
like color, sound, smell, and all the other qualities we experience,
qualities manifesting in the mind. This is the startling conclusion
we are forced to acknowledge; the "stuff" of our world - the world we
know and appear to live within -- is not matter, but mind.

The current superparadigm assumes that space, time and matter
constitute the basic framework of reality, and consciousness somehow
arises from this reality. The truth, it now appears, is the very
opposite. As far as the reality we experience is concerned - and this
remember is the only reality we ever know - consciousness is primary.
Time, space and matter are secondary; they are aspects of the image
of reality manifesting in the mind. They exist within consciousness;
not the other way around.

Similar claims have often been made in spiritual teachings,
particularly Indian philosophy. Patanjali's Yoga Sutra's, for
example, speak of the entire world as chitta vritti, "the
modifications of mind-stuff". When physicists hear statements such as
this, and take them to be referring to the physical world, they or
are understandably perplexed and perhaps dismissive. But when we
understand this to be a statement about the manifestation of our
experienced world, it begins to make more sense.

If we consider the reality we experience, then we have to accept that
in the final analysis they are correct: Consciousness is the essence
of everything-everything in the known universe. It is the medium from
which every aspect of our experience manifests. Every form and
quality we ever experience in the world is an appearance within
consciousness.

Tony B.: And the definition for this 'mind-stuff' in QR is very precise indeed. It describes the inverse 'source-energy' as 'magnetocharge e*', which becomes EMERGENT in the material universe as the product of a characteristic quantum displacement (the diameter of an electron in Quantum-Field-Theory, which is also the nuclear interaction asymptotic confinement zone, say the 'size' of a weakly interacting vector gauge boson with mass, say weakon or Higgs) and the ratio of the Energy/Mass proportionality in c².

But this has dimensions of Volume times Angular Acceleration and so the definition of SPACE defines Consciousness (in say StarCoulomb after the magnetocharge) as the ACTION of angular acceleration (by definition independent on radius and so linearity) upon ANY such SPACE in terms of the 'source energy' aka Ur-Consciousness aka the 'Absolute Reality' of Russell , Kant and many others.



The Hard Question:

As mentioned at the outset, the very existence of consciousness is an
insurmountable anomaly for the current superparadigm. How can
something as seemingly unconscious as matter ever lead to something
as immaterial as consciousness. The two could not be more radically
different. The philosopher David Chalmers has dubbed this the "hard
question" facing any science of consciousness.

Even if we were to fully understand the workings of the brain, down
to the tiniest detail, it would still leave unanswered the question
as to why any of it should result in a conscious experience? Why
doesn't it all go on in the dark, without any subjective aspect?

The question that is apparently being asked is: How does the
underlying reality ever gives rise to consciousness? But never being
able to know the underlying reality directly, we are not really in
any position to even ask this question, let alone answer it. Indeed,
for all we know, consciousness may be an intrinsic quality of the
underlying reality In which case there is no hard question to answer.

The question that is actually being asked is: How does the material
world - the world of space, time and matter - give rise to
consciousness? But this is trying to account for consciousness in
terms that are themselves manifestations of consciousness. Space,
time, matter, and all the forms and structures we observe in the
world, are aspects of the phenomenon arising in the mind; they are
aspects of the image of reality appearing in consciousness.

The question we should be asking is the exact opposite. How is that
consciousness, which seems so non-material, can take on the material
forms that we experience? How do space, time, color, sound, texture,
substance, and the many other qualities that we associate with the
material world, emerge in consciousness? What is the process of
manifestation within the mind?

But this is not a question that science may ever be able to answer.
It is more in the domain of the mystic, and others in the more
contemplative traditions, who have chosen to explore the nature of
consciousness first hand.

Tony B.: I disagree. Science, if say reformed into a kind of Omni-Science, including the 'spiritual-mystic' aspects as say Ontology for a reductionistic science itself; MUST be able to answer this question.

And a model like QR, has imo (of course) already done so in a broad outline for a say framed- or skeletal approach and now subject to extension and refinement.


Self:

Earlier I said that it was probably impossible not to see the world
of our experience as "out there" around us. But it may be that some
of those who have devoted themselves to meditation and observation of
the arising of experience in the mind have developed sufficient inner
clarity to see past appearances. Judging from various spiritual
texts, they may have recognized, as a personal experience rather than
an intellectual insight, that the entire phenomenal world is creation
in the mind, and that consciousness is the primary stuff of their
universe.

Such people - enlightened ones, we usually call them - are those who
have experienced the new superparadigm. For them "I am That, Thou art
That, and all this is That", as it is put in the Upanishads, or more
simply "All is Brahman" (the Sanskrit word which might be translated
as the One, or Essence).

In Western traditions, the same sentiments occur in the statement "I
am God". But the word "God" has so many different meanings and
associations that such statements are prone to considerable
misunderstanding and confusion. To the lay person, the words "I am
God" smack of extreme arrogance-particularly if there is the
implication that "I", this particular individual human being, is God.
To the more religious person, it sounds heretical, if not
blasphemous, and some have burned at the stake for it. While to many
scientists, such statements are meaningless, the symptoms of some
delusion or pathology.

Tony B.: These statements above constitute wonderful 'gnosis' aka scientific knowledge as 'insight' in my view.

I share them absolutely.

And I go further, claiming that it are the 'debunkers' and the 'skeptics for skepticisms sake' which are the 'deluded ones' - relative to the absolute of course and in a manner of speaking.

Science has looked out into deep space, back in "deep time" to the
beginning of creation, and down into the "deep structure" of the
cosmos, the very essence of matter, and is proud to tell us that it
finds no need nor place for God - the Universe seems to work
perfectly well without his assistance. But whoever said God is to be
found "out there", in the realm of space, time and matter? This is a
very naive and old-fashioned interpretation of God. When spiritual
teachings refer to God they are, more often than not, pointing
towards the realm of inner experience, not some thing in the physical
realm. If we want to find God, we have to look within, into the realm
of "deep mind" - a realm that science has yet to explore.

If we look more closely at the statements of those who have explored
deep mind, they seem to be saying that the "I", that innermost
essence of ourselves is a universal essence. Whatever we may be
conscious of, the faculty of consciousness is something we all share.

Tony B.: Wonderful gnosis again. 


This consciousness is the one truth we cannot deny. It is the
absolute certainty of our existence. It is eternal in that it is
always there whatever the contents of our experience. It is the
essence of everything we know. And, since every aspect of our
experience is a manifestation in the mind, it is the creator of the
world we know.

These qualities - truth, absolute, eternal, essence, creator - are
amongst those traditionally associated with God. From this
perspective, the statement "I am God" is not so puzzling or deluded
after all.

Although it might be more accurate to say that "I am" is God, or
possibly, "God is consciousness".

Tony B.: And the statement on the QR site concurs:

"""LOVE is a VIBRATORY RESONANCE described in a SOURCEPHOTON which can be defined in its own resonance eigenstate as:

E*=kT*=hf*=hc/λ*=m*c²=1/e* for Unity E*.e*=1.
 

This can be said to state:

Energy*=GOD=√{2πG_om_e²/4.alpha.hc.e²}=m_e/2e.√alpha.mP

This is the selfstate of the love vibration and resonance, which created the universe."""

The Key:

The foundation stone of the Copernican Revolution was the realization
that the Earth was not still, as had hitherto been supposed, and as
daily experience seemed to confirm, but was spinning about its own
axis. From this shift in perception was born a radically new model of
the cosmos. The foundation stone of this discussion has been the
distinction between the reality generated in the mind, and the
underlying reality. Most of the time we are not aware of this
distinction. We tacitly assume that things are as they appear, and
that we are experiencing the world as it is. We think that the tree
we see is the tree in itself.

When we realize that they are not the same thing at all, but are very
different indeed, a revolutionary new model of reality emerges.
Space, time and matter fall from their absolute status, to be
replaced by light in the physical realm, and by consciousness (the
inner light) in the world of experience.

Instead of matter being primary, and the source of everything we
know, including mind; consciousness becomes primary, and the source
of everything, including matter, as we know it.

For a second time, the universe has been turned inside out.

This shift in superparadigm has not happened yet. The existing model
runs even deeper than did the geocentric view of the cosmos, and will
probably meet even more obstacles than did the Copernican Revolution,
(although now, somewhat ironically, it is science not the church that
is the establishment, and will be the source of the greatest
resistance). Nevertheless, I believe all the pieces are in place,
they have only to be put together into a coherent model.

New paradigms stand or fall according to their ability to account for
persistent anomalies, and incorporate new findings. The emerging new
superparadigm accounts for consciousness - an intractable anomaly for
the old model, remember. It offers radically new perspectives on some
of the most perplexing problems in contemporary physics. And, most
significantly, points towards a resolution of one of the oldest
challenges of all - the reconciliation of the scientific worldview
with the spiritual.

Tony B.: So can you see, that QR as exposed on this site is a valid part of this new superparadigm?

Thanks again for a valuable information resource (Russell and Kant), which I shall share around.

Tony B.

--- In quantumrelativity@yahoogroups.com, Tony Bermanseder
<PACIFICAP@...> wrote:
>
>
> My answer is that I don't know but I had no other way of saying
what I did.
> Guess I'm just not 'pseudo-intellectual' enough to post here.
>
> Hi Lonnie!
>
> This is a pretty derisive comment - what is 'pseudo-intellect'? And
why do you accuse posters here of being that?
> 'Pseudo' means quasi, like a substitute of sorts.
> Now there are very real physical entities, such as quasi-particles
called phonons in the physics of sound transmissions and rather real
physical structures, such as the famous quasi-crystals of Shechtman
and the Penrose tiling patterns.
>
> This is one of the few forums I know of, where there is practically
no censorship (except keeping the blatant advertising of 'stuff'
quasi- and otherwise at bay).
> So everyone is free to say and post anything - there is no quasi-
moderation Lonnie.
>
> Allan did not intend to 'insult' you, but simply wrote his mind, as
he always does.
>
> So please continue your open sharing of thoughts, as this is what
the global net is all about.
>
> Shalom and passionate dreams to you.
>
> Tony B.