John Hagelin, Ph.D ON Consciousness & Superstring Unified Field Theory, How is knowledge lost and The Observer. His homepage. Video library. On YouTube, Discovery of The Unified Field .
He is an American particle physicist, three-time candidate of the Natural Law Party for President of the United States (1992, 1996, and 2000), and the director of the Transcendental Meditation movement for the US.
In 1970, while at Taft, he was involved in a motorcycle crash that led to hospitalization and a full body cast. During this time, one of his teachers introduced him to quantum mechanics, and he also learned the Transcendental Meditation technique, both of which had major impacts on his life.
His work on the "flipped SU(5), heterotic superstring theory" is considered one of the more successful unified field theories or "theories of everything" and was highlighted in a cover story in Discover magazine.
"Weak symmetry breaking by radiative corrections in broken supergravity" 1983
"Supersymmetric relics from the big bang" 1984
In 1987 and 1989, Hagelin published two papers in the Maharishi University of Management's Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science on the relationship between physics and consciousness. These papers discuss the Vedic understanding of consciousness as a field and compares it with theories of the unified field derived by modern physics. Hagelin argues that these two fields have almost identical properties and quantitative structure, and he presents other theoretical and empirical arguments that the two fields are actually one and the same — specifically, that the experience of unity at the basis of the mind achieved during the meditative state is the subjective experience of the very same fundamental unity of existence revealed by unified field theories.
As evidence for this explanation, Hagelin points to the body of research supporting the positive effects created by Transcendental Meditation and the more advanced TM-Sidhi program (which includes a practice called "Yogic Flying") which are said to have measurable effects on social trend parameters. This phenomenon is called the "Maharishi Effect". Hagelin cites numerous studies of such effects.
- it seems the first 2 seconds of video 2 with the words 'and effort' got cut out somehow... here is the full sentence that he is speaking at the end of video 1 and into video 2. "(video 1) try and reproduce that experience, you'll never succeed because trying involves effort (video 2) and effort keeps the awareness active and the comprehension from expanding."
Interesting guy. Compare to TGD, a living Universe :) E8 is maybe not so far from TGD, especially if E8 is 'flipped'.
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer till inlägget (Atom)
Hi Ulla,
SvaraRaderaHe presents a coherent theory but "fundamentally" builds his so called "unification or unified field" on ideas that are rather obsolete for me now. Where is the jump from the unified field in Einsteins quest of but two forces to "unified field of Superstings as the one overriding theory of the universe and from below how can he assert that gravity and the rest are one "intelligence" I am sure such uses of the general formula if looked at with scrutiny does not give what is promised where he talks about the talking about a theory. Other political movements such as the USLabor party, really right wing appearing as left wing, in the United States have used the same Unified field terminology in which it is very hard to find they know nothing, that not there in their fancy equations.
His words make a certain amount of sense- that is they are not just a collection of post modern surrealistic combination's that sound good but are empty of meaning. It is not enough and not the only way (this way to formulate a string or super string theory)
I ask myself how something that sounds so right can be so wrong- both in its understanding of the understanding (his phrase that suggests to me some sort of self-referential consciousness defined) of the unity and diversity of life and that grounding in general consciousness.
In which case it does not measure up with the physical realities nor what is truly wonderful in the awakening new physics of what is actually consciousness.
But as physics I would think his program is very much going counter to that of TGD and the work of Kea et al. If his vision is true it in effect undermines our innate and deeper ideas of consciousness in a unified and far beyond a Vedic idea of reality.
With great respect for your researches,
ThePeSla
Well, "Unified field of superstrings" is, as we understand now, built on weak sand. But the supersymmetry must be there, and so the unification, but maybe on other ways than superstrings :) A skewed E8 can actually lead to those other ways too, it has not to be superstrings.
SvaraRaderaGravity can indeed be seen as one "intelligence" if the second law holds. This may not be the case, and the "laws" (and the math) can then also evolve. The crucial thing here are the number of dimensions, and time. Smolin,as instance talked of "time as fingers" and many different times. Matti has two basic times. This phenomen is then also behind the scaling of Universe.
There is not so much research done on gravity and nerves, but gravity may be very important for our thinking capability. There is no clear contradiction.
I think this really tells us what is the essence of consciousness. We people want so badly to think that WE are conscious (not bacterias, or molecules), and that WE create the consciousness in some ad hoc manner, when everything in reality comes to us for free. The real problem we have is to HINDER a too big consciousness input (measurement) into our nervesystems. In the measurement process the consciousness is ALWAYS DIMINISHED. We have to chose between right or left,as in an election:) By our (s)elections we then CREATE something new (emergent?) which we call intelligence.
THIS he so wonderfully explained.
Of course he is considered an "crackpot" of those "serious scientists" that really think THEY create consciousness:)
Interesting,
SvaraRaderaI have not heard he was looked down upon by "serious scientists". Of course he is using their standard vision and terminology.
Measurement always diminished? So we lose information in the simplifiy of it?
The problem is the limiting of "too big a consciousness?" No, there are no limits in itself except maybe a limitation on the energy it takes to recover memory we so freely and vastly lay down (same with computers, a heat problem really- but that thermodynamic law may break down on some scale too.
Sounds like I have some agreement with TGD in this more dynamical view.
Gravity and nerves hmmmm- interestingly they have mapped the brain, that is 80% of genes are expressed there. Great points for departure into theory and experiments!
Gravity as intelligence?- again, or gravity as thermodynamics, interesting but still metaphysics.
E8 is only the beginning of these great and hidden symmetries, not the end of them. I do not know what you mean by skewed here. Maybe that is a limitation of some vast consciouness or intelligence seeming thing. But more than this our "selection" or choices in the face of such an infinity of them (or even our fact of not doing such a choice that has influence in the aether on other choices)- that as intelligence? Interesting again. But does it create, let emerge, or is it already there as one idea for a general intelligence on all scales?
I have defined life, metaphorically, with several ideas- none of which ultimately relies on right or left symmetry although that idea with dimensions in itself is a very creative one and an intelligible one to explain the universe... but this is also true regardless of what sentient being thinks they cause or can hinder its accelerating expansion:
Life is that signal we recieve before it is sent.
The PeSla (wondering if the growing complexity of his blog not expected each day will ever slow down and reach and end? Nor our brilliant questions, Ulla)
Well, I got such a response he is a xxx from a reader. If you look at the discussion they are all xxx, so it doesn't matter.
SvaraRaderaOf course we loose information. Every time you make a choice. Our sensory apparatus is built in that manner, because it would be an impossible situation if everything we meet would be processed. So our apparatus give labels of different importance to the processes (attention, emotion, etc. essentially thermodynamics) so we sensore only a small part, and even that little part is diminished and so on. The amount that reach our awareness is very, very small. This is the main purpose we have a nervous system. And maybe for the energytransfer, =dissipationless, to avoid heating up.
A curiosa that I found out is that even eating is about bracing our body. Also that is thermodynamics.
Consciousness is in the vacuum and it entrances the body in every possible way. This the video tells us very well. A tree that have no nerves is conscious. Also the tree need to sort out, but it doesn't move so much, so it needs no nerves?
Everything we experience is laid in a memory pool (magnetic?), but often we never become even aware of it. Still those memories are there and invoke on our phenotype. Everything from our environment is laid there too. We ARE our environment, what we eat, drink, air that we breath etc, every single molecule and atom we are made of is environment. And how do we treat that part of us? This is the NURTURE aspect of genome. It tells how our nerves shall grow, and there belong also gravity. Ca,Fe,P,S etc are such that resonate with em-and gravity fields. Intelligence belongs there too. But as I said this is far from well explored yet. But it is NOT metaphysics.
E8 is the heterotic string model, but also an Lie-group, and there are lower groups. The heterotic model can be skewed, asymmetric, I learned from Lubos, also Vitiello.
I don't exactly know what you mean with emerge - maybe intelligence. As I see it intelligence comes/emerges when we have chosen away sufficiently other alternatives, so we find the red thread :) Intelligence is there alredy, but 'messed up', so eg. we doesn't even create anything, only refine it. When we talk of synchronity it is exactly this, the same kinds of 'refinements' are there, just as they would want to be found.
Great ideas are born in that way. The same time can several people get the same brilliant idea. Numerous examples. It is like the idea is developed enough (in the vacuum?), or the society is developed enough to let the idea be found. :) Is the idea born in advance it will get no reception (like TGD?).
THAT is metaphysics, but with an ounce of truth.
What kind of signal is Life? You know, that was the main concern of Wallace once. He was the one who got the idea of natural selection together with Darwin. Wallace idea was better, because he had the consciousness there too. Darwin was the Newtonian, reductionistic guy.
http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2011/04/17/gravity-weighs-in-on-spectroscopy/
My questions will never end, instead they become more every day :)
But Ulla
SvaraRaderathat is such a great and clear reply.
something I have to think more about.
emerge was not my term, sorry that was not clear.
Jung seems better to me than Freud- but as I understand it, his synchronicity was a thermodynamic model of the mind.
I had that thought once needed a drink of water in the UNC library by the English books, when I turned around there was a book of Jung's, out of place in the stacks... I reached and opened it up and read- "Jung's model of the mind is a thermodynamic model of the mind." at the head of the chapter.
Indeed, Jung's model is very good :) It tells much about the 'window' to our unconsciousness and collective consciousness, by experience, so this consciousness cannot possibly be something that is created in our minds.
SvaraRaderaHis archetypes are exactly about that.
Sub; Necessity-Demand-Curiosity-Sustain
SvaraRaderaCosmology Vedas interlinks- needs best of brains trust
http://vidyardhicosmology.blogspot.com/