The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Thu Dec 25 06:10:08 EST 2003
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:NkhGb.316$SE5.9452 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%85Gb.10836$wL6.115 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Thank you for continuing.
> > "Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:42c8441.0312230944.676e60ca at posting.google.com...
> > > The energy density at an instantaneous point
> > > in 3D space is a weird thing, remember Heisenberg?
> > Honestly, I just cannot see any "uncertainty".
> It is a weird thing because instantaneous points
> dont physically exist! Everything is moving or
> changing (BTW, time IS correlations of changes
> against a relatively regularly changing entropy
> increasing gradient - as Ken might put it.
I can transform 3-D energydynamics to discuss them
in terms of 'time', but doing so still doesn't impart
physical existence to what's been referred to as "time".
> If Alex wants to 'justify' the Uncertainty Principle
> (which by the way does not need any justification),
> why fight against it?
Honestly, I just cannot see any 'uncertainty' - any non-
> This since 1. You presumably want to have your
> theory seen as a theory that explains much about
> neurology and behaviour, and, most importantly,
> to have it published;
I long, first, to Honor Truth.
I long, too, to have the work I've done Published.
But not at the too-great-cost of Dishonoring Truth.
> 2. Presumably, you know that virtual particles
> and vacuum energy, and the "Casimir effect"
> thus created, all *do* exist - no matter how
> strangely so;
"Virtual particles" are just 3-D energydynamics
riding the crest of WDB2T's universal energy
Things pop in and out of temporarily-formed
SSW<->UES harmonics in a way that's exactly
analogous to the macroscopic observables in a
2-liter bottle of gingerale that's just been opened
for the first 'time'.
The WDB2T energy gradient is right-there-to-see
in the bottle - bubbles of CO2 burst forth out of
the uniformly-bubble-free liquid, and ride the WDB2T
energy gradient, thumbing their noses at what's been
referred to as "gravity" [some would say that 'gravity'
pushes them up', but it's 'just' universal WDB2T's
order->dis-order stuff happening right-there in the
"Vacuum energy" is 'just' an incomplete [because it
doesn't see WDB2T] 'nod' to the UES.
The "Casimir Effect" is 'just' more setting-up of
fleeting SSQ<->UES harmonics, replete with a
rigorously-coupled 'light show' through which the
harmonics' 'winking-out' can be observed.
> 3. That most people are not aware of , or are
> legitimately still uncertain, about the string
> theoretical approach in fundamental physics.
I didn't get much further than it's postualting of
"11 dimensions", eight of which are 'conveniently'
'crumpled-up' into near oblivion.
> [The mathematical "strings"-concept seems (to
> the few who know) to be a better approach to
> solve equations and explain things of relevance in
> fundamental physics, than to try to solve the same
> things by way of mathematics based on the "point"-
With respect to folks being biased with respect to
that with which they're relatively 'familiar' [including
me], see NDT, where the neural dynamics under-
pinning such are reified.
With respect to 'points', I agree..
> Don't waste your energy to answer this post, Ken.
> Instead concentrate on Alex.
It's all worthwhile.
> Lastly , *please* stop writing "keeping *tract*"!!!
> The word to use is "TRACK".
I stand corrected.
ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci