Aether Physics Model (APM)

[bboyer]

I get lost when you use these anologies (although I tried not too). I am trying to meet you and understand your point. I think it helps to only discuss the items as real items. (mixing charge and wave, as alternate realities, like steven did is a sign of a classical mess in thinking, I am thinking yours is about non material into material) It is hard for me to jump back and forth between buckets and non material in the way you described you disconnect.

Maybe I could state it more simple. Phrased in the form of a simple question.

I believe that the whole issue is how does non material become material>
How does what a bucket cannot hold, make a bucket? That Is that the stumble block>
Correct?

I think you've hit it squarely on the head with that. I'm not sure that's the exact question but it's probably close. I've come to know that the skill, or art, is not in coming up with the right answer as our school systems so indoctrinate us, but to learn the art of asking the right question. Then, I believe, the answer takes care of itself. In other words, the explicit answer is implicitly held within the unasked question. When the implicit, potential-becoming of the unstructured question is touched upon (seen, heard, visualized - we know these are only words and are not the actuality) by the awareness of an honest, truth-seeking heart, and form-ulated (given form) into and by an openly receptive mind, the answer is ... allowed, permitted ... to be born into the explicit domain of answers. I know Bruce Lee would get that.

Something that just popped into my mind from an Alan Watts lecture. In the west we are indoctrinated into asking, "Mother, how was I made?" In the east (well, before it started being made over into the image of the west), a child would never think of asking such a question, but would ask, "Mother, how was I grown?". Dunno, just kinda liked that and felt it somehow apropos. The marriage of structure (west) and function (east)?

To me - and what I had hoped would be the promise of the APM in terms of unfolding physical description as far as it could go, right to our "spiritual" doorstep whereat we could possibly gain a clearer insight of the threshold where non-being unfolds to being and vice versa - to me, it is our quality of being (and I don't mean in such a narrow sense of being as identification of ourselves only as a human-bean), that it is our quality of being that must enter into the "equational" transition/transformation from "that which cannot be held" into "that which holds and is held". A holistic marriage of western being (structured and functional materialism) with eastern non-being (non-structured, non-functional immateriality). Have you considered revisiting Bruce Lee's philosophy from the vantage point of your experience since first encountering it. Better yet, have you considered going to the sources from which he drank?

I visited your blog. You are one prolific writer, JL! You are going to create one hell of a resource for us all, I am certain. Thank you.

Let's take it slow. I appreciated your question.

[junglelord]

So what is your answer to the question?
How do you construct material from non material?
We can respond if you care in a new thread that deserves its own discussion.
I just made it.
I think that APM can stand alone.
Every article needs examination, not for APM sake, for the sake of knowledge of each article.
We need to take that journey together.
Dave Thomson has done his work to completion, I do see how he did what he did.
I am sure others will either get it, or not.
We need to remember this.
A TOE can be learned in a day or a lifetime.
Lets not turn this thread into a lifetime.
Lets leave it open for a day.

I will make a valid effort to quote sections of APM so the reader/visitor can read the theory as a single piece of work.
This will close the thread down as far as what is APM. It will speak for itself.
This thread is about "what is APM?", not how to disprove it.

[Plasmatic]

don't see your help in these areas, or threads. What I do see is a personal attack on APM, no matter how you cloak it.
you dont buy it, we all know it.
the people I have responded to in this thread are trying to understand it. You are not.

Thats Ok too Jl , Please i invite you to ignore my posts if they displease you or dont help you, as I am entitled to express my disagreement with APM in the APM thread. Ill politely respond to statements relevent to te thread itself , thank you!

[junglelord]

knock yourself out.

I do invite all members and plasmatic to help the entire forum to answer every question, not just APM

[bboyer]

So what is your answer to the question?
How do you construct material from non material?

Well, shoot. I just spent umpteen minutes answering it. Short version, then. You ain't gonna like this. "I don't know." In the same manner that I don't know how I beat my own heart. But I do it. In the same way I don't know how babies emerge and grow from non-being into being. Really, just how far can our conceptual knowledge take us? Sincere question.

As I said in the long version, I was kinda hoping the APM would take it as far as it could. But I don't see it so far.

[Plasmatic]

So what is your answer to the question?
How do you construct material from non material?

I do not ask this question. It involves the concept of creation ex nihilio which i see as an invalid concept divorced from cause and effect. The universe just is. Existence exists. thats where I start. To start before the metaphysically given is a religious quesion in my understanding. This is what I see in my current context of understanding as the question that APM cannot answer scientifically i.e verifiably as in observation not mathematical symbols/models.

[junglelord]

Well I apprciate both of your honest answers. Neither one of you has an answer. I therefore believe the new thread should be a good place to begin. I have already started. Again this single element is much more then APM. Each element that is not understood is bigger then APM. Cetainly no one will understand APM if they cannot answer these questions for themself.

[Plasmatic]

Of course there is the possiblity that APM is not asking the right questions. [edit] in the relevent context of science.

[bboyer]

So what is your answer to the question?
How do you construct material from non material?

I do not ask this question. It involves the concept of creation ex nihilio which i see as an invalid concept divorced from cause and effect. The universe just is. Existence exists. thats where I start. To start before the metaphysically given is a religious quesion in my understanding. This is what I see in my current context of understanding as the question that APM cannot answer scientifically i.e verifiably as in observation not mathematical symbols/models.

Undoubtedly the question is rooted in our western culture, all the way back to when the records emerged. You do not find such questions in the ancient eastern texts where the concept of an external creator "architect", "builder", "maker of things" (i.e. creations) did not exist, no separation between creator/created, tho' granted they did have the heaven and earth thing going on, which the Saturn Hypothesis addresses nicely.

[Plasmatic]

[/quote]

You do not find such questions in the ancient eastern texts where the concept of an external creator "architect", "builder", "maker of things" (i.e. creations) did not exist, no separation between creator/created, tho' granted they did have the heaven and earth thing going on, which the Saturn Hypothesis addresses nicely.
[/quote]

Without veering too far the Saturn Hypothesis addresses this common misconception as well. Lets stick to APM.

[junglelord]

Of course there is the possiblity that APM is not asking the right questions. [edit] in the relevent context of science.

What are the right questions>

[bboyer]

But, yes, we're straying a little too far from the topic. The whole thing started with questioning the APM's notion of a "structured immateriality" which is a valid question of the model. Dave Thomson acknowledged it was a common question. I still do not think it was addressed satisfactorily.

I'm outta here until you guys slow down.

[bboyer]

And please, continue to self-moderate.

[Plasmatic]

Well I might just have to pull out my Kimono and phoney "foo man choo beard" to answer that one Id say, start with verfiable , answerable, and non contradictory ones for a start.

I think these quotes from Wal are poignant.:

“As soon as a physicist talks of particle creation and formation of the universe you can tune out. That's not physics either. Certainly not in our present state of ignorance.”

“The real problem is that no one understands quantum physics. It's not even real physics because it defies the causal principle; an effect has a probability of occurring without any preceding cause. And the barrier to the idea of new matter (which is not the same as mass) coming from "nowhere" is that it defies another principle of physics - "no creation ex nihilo." So it's too bad training in the history and philosophy of science and critical thinking is not required for a science degree.”


"This simple picture conforms to the principle of physics which states there can be no creation or annihilation of matter. It is a principle honored in the breach by modern physics and big bang theory. The notion that their must be a "deep esoteric explanation" is symptomatic of the metaphysical approach to physics introduced by Einstein.
It is interesting that Einstein disliked quantum theory because of its probabilistic nature and he thought that it signalled some lower level of structure in matter. “

Note these quotes are from various discussions repeated here with permission.

[junglelord]

I don't see a steady state universe as created.
So I dont buy that rebuttal either.
APM did not say anything about a big bang or creation.

I am going to put your quote in QM in the QM thread as thats where it belongs. APM is not QM.
I believe it is an important question and valid to support the QM thread.
I hope you don't mind.
I wish you would make a statement in the spin thread. To not do so at this point is disengenuous.

I have nothing to do with APM. I am mearly looking at every option. Since I ovbiously do not understand spin, I would like your help in that already well reprsented thread to either teach us a lesson, or to eat crow.

I have eaten crow many times, taste like a black hole.