This conversation, between Russell Smith and myself, took place several weeks ago. Now is the time to publish it.
As my first foray into the Physics Forums was coming to an end, I muttered aloud to Heartstone, 'If you want me to continue this experiment of communicating with you, send a person who has interest and background, and is willing to converse.'
I submitted my last comments to the PF, and was about to exit when this private message appeared:
QI (Russell) I find your premise fascinating and would love to participate in your journey.
My first post in 2004 proposed that F=MA was fundamentally wrong. I had spent several years trying to explain why it was wrong at that point. The only reference they had to understand my position was mathematical because that is all they were taught.
The answer was simple that it wasn't Mass that was responsible but gravity, the maths worked out because gravity is proportional to mass (well in a basic form anyway).
Then they got it ... couldn't do anything with it, because it meant nothing in math .. no one had created a way of understanding it in a mathematical manner.
I didn't tell them I was 13 yrs old when I worked on 'F=MA' was wrong. The more fascinating was understanding infinity at 15 yrs with rather unexpected results.
I think it was Bertrand Russell who said 'we must constrain and torture nature's secrets from her' or along those lines.
Anyway I hope I have something to offer you if only a sounding wall.
On the PF threads, I focused too much on trying to understand how matter can be conscious.
It also does not work to compare the consciousness of matter to biologically-developed human consciousness. Instead, I can be looking for another type of consciousness.
This came to mind when a PF physicist told me how in a human, consciousness is indicated by measuring changes which correspond to its fluctuations. I probably am not communicating this well, it is from memory.
It came to me that if there is some type of consciousness going on in a stone, for example, it will not have fluctuations such as between unconscious and conscious. It's consciousness will be a constant.
And whereas human consciousness is generated in the brain, the consciousness of a stone must be within its atomic structure or somewhere else. My conversations with Heartstone have purported to be with cooperative networks of conscious particles through the focal point of a stone — not necessarily limited to the stone itself.
Perhaps it is not matter that is conscious but another medium which appears in what we call matter.
Can you conceive that some type of consciousness could be generated by the interactions of frequencies within particles? By super-strings?
And then, to go beyond trying to imagine how it could be possible, how could my conversations with a stone be objectified?
It has been suggested to me that there is no evidence of the consciousness of matter. That seems to me a problem of the perspective of what conscious matter should look like. Also, Heartstone 'said' that not all particles are conscious, such as plastic, whose atomic structure has been manipulated too far from it natural origins.
Well, this is all still very interesting to me. I would like to go further with it, with the help of your sounding board. But as Heartstone repeatedly told me, 'No expectations, no contracting emotions. We (the particle network) can only work with an open state (of humans.)
If you and I have an on-going conversation, may I include your comments in Whole Human blog posts?
Until the next now,
Russell (QI) Selected excerpts from Russell's comments.
R. - Heart stone talks sense.
G. - Thank you for this. Heart stone does talk sense, it is just when my mental thoughts get mixed in that it becomes muddled.
R. -Time, "A Passing of Time". This is our experience of Time (more on this in a bit)
R. -This is life of sorts but like everything else thought of by humans they compare it to themselves.
You can see this exact interplay at work in schools all over the world where a quiet child somewhat nervous sits by themselves not wanting to interact with others. Then a group forms and starts treating this person like the stone. Because in there limited reference the stone like child looks nothing like any member of there group.
Atoms.... Are not understood and never will be for one simple reason, there is always another experiment to be done that tells them more than they new before. It used to be called matter then we had the periodic table which gave us lots of different types of matter. Then in the words of Bertrand, "tortured natures secrets from her" by splitting the atom which gave an array of strange result that were called sub atomic particles which lead on to quarks etc etc.
Gary as you know Philosophers for the last 10000 years or more would say "Until they become the stone they will never see the stone", "If they cannot see the stone they can never truly understand the stone".
It's widely accepted in science that all natural forms of life have a natural frequency they resonate to. This was defined by Tesla. For some reason science doesn't include rocks in that. I personally would include rocks in the definition of natural things, just because we cannot 'hear' the rock doesn't mean its not trying to communicate with us.
Exactly. We will not have a chance to know a rock as a focal point of non-local consciousness until we can go beyond comparing it to ourselves or to anything we are familiar (and comfortable) with. In this endeavor, I think, there are no useful frames of reference. It becomes too conceptual, and in the head only, at which point I have to let go and bring myself back to life here and now, in this body, in the present moment.
G. - About all natural forms of life having a natural frequency — I asked perhaps naive questions of a scientist, and he responded so:
P.D. - You could, for example, find some way of objectively measuring the "internal state" of a stone (something analogous to an EEG or an fMRI scan for a human brain), and objectively demonstrate changes in that state that correlate closely with the "conversation" you are having with the stone.
G. - This seems to attempt to humanize universal or particle consciousness
P.D. - No, it's just giving 'consciousness' some kind of meaning other than just 'whatever Gary Smith wants it to be'. Basically, you appear to be using a definition of 'consciousness' which can apply to anything. That means the definition is useless; we already have a word that can apply to anything, namely 'anything'.
G. - Can science measure the overall frequency of a human body?
P.D. - I have no idea what this means, so I can't say. The human body is not a harmonic oscillator.
G. - Is information exchanged between particles?
P.D. - I have no idea what this means either.
(Back to Russell)
R. - For clarity I'm not including meditation in that description purely from my own experience that I initiate the conversation with the universe and then universe responds back, rather than the universe starting the conversation and me responding whilst I'm in a meditated state.
G. - Over the years, the universe (using the term broadly as non-local consciousness) has 'spoken' to me in many different ways — dreams, experiences of the present moment, animal symbolism, expanded consciousness, some become hard to put into words.
R. - I was 15 old and after the success 2 years earlier F=MA - its not mass its gravity, Mass is not a force gravity is, the maths still works because Mass and Gravity proportional to each other etc etc. I decide to look at time.
As I said earlier Time is a 'A Passing of time.' To be aware of Time you need to have a memory of the past to compare to the current moment of time your experiencing.
And that is where I got stuck. I figured I needed to hone my reasoning skills so I took another subject matter that every person in the world has a categorical understanding of — "EveryThing", should be simple enough so I started in the normal way.
What is every thing > well its everything ---- ooops! I thought this might not be so easy. I reasoned that If we ask simple questions we will get clear and direct answers, If I make the question overly complex there would be a mired of possible and plausible answers and I like simple.
So I took very basic tools and used them
What is everything, well its very large the largest thing you can possibly imagine. Is there a way to describe this in math, it had to be the largest number which gave me infinity. Which still didn't help.
Then I realized that if I define the exact opposite of infinity we could use that to define what infinity (Everything) is.
So I wondered what the smallest number would be and obviously wrote down Zero. But I quickly released that zero wasn't the smallest number it was an absence of a number, the turning point of positive numbers and negative numbers, Zero was only there to make math work!!
So I did it again and asked myself what the smallest number possible was and I got 1/infinity as the result ... Now nothing actually had a value :) and I wasn't expecting that.
Taking this back to Time, I looked back at my question of time, I added the effect of gravity (now that I could happily ignore zero) and wrote
'Time is a variable defined by the interaction of moving gravitational fields.'
G. -Looks like we have some interesting conversations ahead, so long as we are living with a sense of time!