Thesis on MacDougall Space and the Astral Form

In article , stik says...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Thesis on MacDougall Space and the Astral Form.

Part 1.

The Good News According to John 14,2
In my Fathers house are many mansions.

Duncan MacDougall MD in 1907 wrote "If personal continuity after the
event of bodily death is a fact [1], if the psychic functions continue
to exist as a separate individual or personality after the death of brain
and body, then such personality can only exist as a space occupying
body, unless the relations between space objective and space notions in
our consciousness, established in our consciousness by heredity and
experience, are entirely wiped out at death and a new set of relations
between space and consciousness suddenly established in the continuing
personality. This would be an unimaginable breach in the continuity of
nature.

Show me the Pythagoreum theorum.

No, not an example of it in practice, and no, not a written
representation of it. Show me the thing in itself.
Show me the form of the Pythagorean Theorum.

What do you mean it has no substance? It exists does it not?

It is a law of nature is it not?

Yet it has no substance.

It occupies no space.

Show me a bed.

No not a big one. Not a colored one. Not a particluar one,
show me a bed. The thing in and of itself.

A bed is something you lay down on to sleep, and many of
them look similar but not all, but the notion or idea
of a bed is a thing is it not? Yet it has no substance.


I could go on and on, but that is the argument that Plato
and Aristotle used for the existenc of things which have
no atoms.

So the notion that things must have atoms to exist is erroneus and
false.

In Bells Theorum, spooky action at a distance, also, dissolves
any argument that things must physically touch to affect each other.



It is unthinkable that personality and consciousness continuing personal
identity should exist, and have being, and yet not occupy space.


Not so. In fact it has never been proven in any way shape or form,
that consciousness requires space at all, or that in fact,
consciousness is in any way a chemical or electrical or biochemical
or electrochemical process.

The light patterns on a monitor which show areas of the brain
during brain activity do not prove the origin of that activity.

If consciousness causes the brain to think, we still do not
know how it does it. It may cause the electrochemical
or biochemical processes but that tells us nothing about
the stuff of consciousness itself.

A person with Alzimers loses memory and people with injuries
and ailments lose function of the brain, and still
we do not know if that is merely the inability to
operate the brain as was done previously.

It does not prove that consciousness is affected.

It is
impossible to represent in thought that which is not space-occupying, as
having personality; for that would be equivalent to thinking that nothing
had become or was something, that emptiness had personality, that space
itself was more than space, all of which are contradictions and absurd."


Here is a point . here is another point .

How does information, be it an electron, or a photon, or anything
at all with substance, get from a to b?

Is it solid between them? Does information travel on a solid?

Is it points then?

Can we divide the area into smaller and smaller sections,
merely by dividing the area between by two for ever?

Then how does anything cross the infinity, that exists
between two points?

Space houses infinity does it not?

Does it not house infinite space and time?

And what proof do you have, that there are not more dimensions?

What proof do you have that hyperspace does not exist when
physics today tells us it does. What does the universe expand into,
if not another dimension where there is no dimensional space?
(No xyz)




We begin with MacDougall rationalizing space as if analogous with
n-dimensional form and "nothing" as that which is "not space-occupying".


What about n-dimensional space. I am sorry but it sounds to me,
like MacDougall read about n-dimensional space, did not
understand it, and went forth to make stuff up, with no basis
of fact, just beliefs based on past beliefs which themselves were
not based on experiment, but merely ideas and notions.
Worse still, the motivation came from the attempt to deny or disprove
religious doctrine. That sounds like the starting point of
his argument.

"I shall set out to disprove the soul"

Based on what exactly?

Psuedo-science, fanciful notions, and the mere will to disprove
religion in any way shape or form possible. To do away with
aether. To deny all existence which cannot be seen felt heard,
smelt or tasted. To live in the real world! (They always say,
wishing the world would accomodate them)

Well wishing don't make it so.


In MacDougalls black and white universe all that is created exists within
the manifold of space. Nothing may come from nothingness, not even
quantum mechanical virtual particles. All that has form has origins in
form [2]. With his black and white rationale he goes on to add "Since
therefore it is necessary to the continuance of conscious life and
personal identity after death, that they must have for a basis that which
is space-occupying, or substance, the question arises has this substance
weight, is it ponderable?"
Well it is certainly ponderable in terms of MacDougall space form.
Whether it has weight (mass) and other properties will depend exactly
on how this "personality" (or Astral) form "hooks" onto MacDougall space
form. Properties such as weight and force are the result of form
interacting with form by means of hooks built into the form.
All of physics and chemistry describes the world in this way ultimately.
As it turns out the Astral form may indeed have hooks into "our world"
that give it mass and weight thus bringing us some small way towards
a determination in regard of supposition [1].

End of part 1.

Majestik




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBP61hNsBO8F5oxeKZEQK9IwCffzMR7nskAxyWkblki46X09 LWKkEAn3X2
KwiNrhZzHSChGjErTFrrpP7a
=B+wM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lets go a little further shall we, for the sake of the realists...


Here is a point . here is another point .

How does information, be it an electron, or a photon, or anything
at all with substance, get from a to b?

Is it solid between them? Does information travel on a solid?

Is it points then?

Can we divide the area into smaller and smaller sections,
merely by dividing the area between by two for ever?

Then how does anything cross the infinity, that exists
between two points?


So you say that the smallest measure of time is a Plank moment,
and the smallest measure of space is Plank length.

And you cannot divide them further.

Why not?

Because your ability to detect stops at Plank length and Plank time?

So your instruments are forming reality now then?

Let us suppose that yes, you are forming reality for yourselves
in your world with your instruments. You are now doing the
deciding here what is real. After all you are realists.

So then, are the Plank length rods that make up the
geodesics of space time, touching each other?

The little rods. Are they touching? Then how does the information
transfer occur from one to the next?

So then how far apart are they if they are not touching?

Or if they are touching a bit, then they must be lubricated?

Is that it? Perfect lubrication, perfect elasticity,
in your real universe. But then even with lubrication,
are they not touching and therefore it must be a solid no?

So you see, no real thing ever touches another real thing
in the 4 dimensions of space time.

Real things are nothing more than energy. Waves in a medium,
not the medium.

The medium is not in the real dimension at all, therefore it
is outside our ability to detect it because we are not
it. We are energy. That which we see feel and detect,
are the differences between things.

We measure the differences.

xyzt and xyzt(2)

between one reference frame in 4 dimensional space-time and another.

That tells us very little about what anything is, and most certainly
does not tell us anything about things which may exist beyond
our earthly means to detect it.

So by nature physics excludes things. Anything that cannot be
detected is excluded. But let us not delude ourselves
into believing we know what things are made of or how
anything works at all.

That is why physicists love math.

But not just math but _calculus_.

"We shall agree that this postulate is the truth. All agreed.
Therefore we have a building block. Let us agree also that
n-dimensional substance is a real thing then agreed?"
"Agreed": Therefore we have a second building block. let
us name it MacPostulate. Wait, it is upside down. There,
now it is the MacPostulate Transformation. Can I get an Einstein?
"Einstein!" Wait, it appears to be diverging. Let
us add an addendum. There now it has symmetry. Let me taste
it yes. A bit quarky but nice color and flip. No wait,
flip sounds too flippant. Let us call it spin. Well done!
Wait! But flip sounds more MacPostulate like. Very well,
let us call for a decision. And the Nobel panels says...
Flip! Congratulations. Yes, the real world, is a marvelous thing.
Now then. Who shall volunteer to give the speech to explain
flip? Come now, let us see some hands..."

It is easy, to lose sight of what we know, as opposed to
what we believe.

That is why we base our theories on experiment. Reproducible
experiment. Yet people still argue, over the interpretation
of the data, and the quantum fluctuations in the data,
and given the standard whereby water may run uphill at
any time and monkeys may write a sonnet quite by chance,
the margin for error can be _statistically_ seen to
encompass, such deviations from the prescribed norm,
and in any event that which we know! Bla bla bla bla bla....

Is that we do not like the idea, that we do not know everything
up to and including the big bang creation of the universe
and prefer to see ourselves instead, as the quiet pensive
types, gleaning the secrets of creation from drops of
oil, the tinkerings of great men and women of science,
in large laboratories, and with huge amounts of electricity.
Why without the huge amounts of electricity we could not
unlock the mysteries, of huge amounts,,, of electricity.


Being a philosopher allows me an objective viewpoint.
I hope you don't mind me teasing you with the facts. :-)

Dear Rick Sobie,

Great response! I enjoyed that...

-HG.

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:gfHrb.357832$6C4.76881@pd7tw1no...

Show me the Pythagoreum theorum.

That's "PythagoreAN TheorEM"

[snip]

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:llIrb.359705$9l5.78965@pd7tw2no...

Bla bla bla bla bla....

You said it!