The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Thu Dec 25 06:17:54 EST 2003


"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kAzGb.246$d4.107 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hi Peter.
>
> "Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:NkhGb.316$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-
> deterministic dynamics.
>
> > 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
> gradient.
>
> 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
> bottle].
>
> "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 SS[W]<->UES harmonics, replete with a <----- typo
> 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.
>
> "Epicycles" :-[
>
> Move-on.

More recently, they're doing it with "loops", and
others are doing an analogous thing with "branes".

Pretty soon, they'll be doing it with spherical
standing wave 'dark energy' harmonics, and, although
I'll not receive credit, I'll have been Published.

ken

> > [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"-
> > concept.]
>
> 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".
> >
> > P
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ken [k. p. collins]
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list