Customer Discussions > Science forum

Need some help in dealing with apparent woo


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 5, 2012 11:56:12 AM PDT
Hello all,
We already had discussion about Stephen M Phillips,who claims to find correlation between superstring theory,kaballah and theosophy.You know my deep dislike about the notion of "shadow matter" and "subtle bodies",especially where 2 goes together.This is what Phillips try to reconcile.The reason I opened the new thread is that I don't want to put your attention to WHOLE article(which was the point of previous article).I'll post just one piece of the article,that bothers me right now,and then will post how I try to deal with it,hoping for your help.So,please,don't read the whole article,read only the part 6 is named "The UPA as a 11-brane".
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html

I must honeslty say that I don't understand much of what he say,because to I'm not so godo in neither superstring theory nor in kaballah/theosophy.But I tried to find some points in what he say,that are clearly speculatuive or not scientific.I will mark in bold the points that bother me and how I try to deal with it

So,let me start:
"Up till now, theorists have had to define ordinary and shadow matter as singlet representations of the other's unified gauge symmetry group because they could not explain why the gauge symmetry group E8 appears twice in the symmetry group describing superstring forces free of quantum anomalies. My theory provides a natural explanation of why these two kinds of matter appear in superstring theory: an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space. The former creates an ordinary matter superstring; this is the UPA with its ten whorls. The latter creates a shadow matter superstring, which is predicted to comprise five whorls."

Problem: seems just assertion.Can his claim about "an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space." be proven? Doesn't it seem as just assertion without evidence?

Then he goes into long talk about how "ultimate physical atom" corresponds to the "tree of life " of kaballah,but let focus on this:

"If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct, then equations 3 and 9 indicate that the shadow matter superstring with five whorls created by the alternative wrapping of a 11-brane around the curled-up dimensions of S×C should have two, not three, major whorls. The significance of this may be that the three major whorls of the UPA correspond to the Supernal Triad of Kether, Chokmah and Binah, or what Theosophists call the three `Logoi' (in Christian parlance - but not in Christian interpretation - the `Holy Trinity' or `Three Persons of the Godhead'). This means that the second major whorl corresponds to the Second Logos, the so-called `Outpouring' from which is the life-force that Hindus call `prana,' whilst the interpretation in Section 10 of shadow matter as etheric matter means that the superstring predicted to have five whorls is the basic unit of etheric matter, the pranic energy contained within which may be one of the energy-fields of the shadow matter superstring. Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness - the etheric body, not its outer shell, which is assembled from superstrings of ordinary matter by means of the form-building forces that have their source in Fohat."

1.If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct - big if indeed

2.Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness - the etheric body, not its outer shell

How can he know that?Doesn't seem that just assertion without solid foundation?

Also,we can claim that all these claims are unfalsifiable.

This is how I try to deal with it,trying to find reasons not to take it as something serious and true.

I know it sounds strange,but it seems like this guy "forces" me to accept what he is writing but I try to "counter" him...

So,any thoughts?
Any help will be appreciated
Thank you

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 11:53:47 AM PDT
reply to Alexander Zlotnik's post:

kabbalah is krapppp
string theory is obsolete

M theory does a better job

the newer tbv 248 dimensional theory does it better still

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 1:04:30 PM PDT
"kabbalah is krapppp"
Well,that could be the case,but even there it is not so,the whole attempt to connect "ultimae physical atom" to "tree of life" of kabbalah could be very well crap and speculation.And talks about Logos and Fohat take us way beyonf science,I guess...

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 10:50:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2012 10:52:53 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
Alexander, quoting woo tang clan: "The significance of this may be that the three major whorls of the UPA correspond to the Supernal Triad of Kether, Chokmah and Binah, or what Theosophists call the three `Logoi' . . . . This means that the second major whorl corresponds to the Second Logos, the so-called `Outpouring' from which is the life-force that Hindus call `prana,' whilst the interpretation in Section 10 of shadow matter as etheric matter means that the superstring predicted to have five whorls is the basic unit of etheric matter, the pranic energy contained within which may be one of the energy-fields of the shadow matter superstring. Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness - the etheric body, not its outer shell, which is assembled from superstrings of ordinary matter by means of the form-building forces that have their source in Fohat."

The reason this seems so compelling is that your brain is made to move very, very rapidly in a variety of different directions at once without ever actually having to process anything. It's the same reason why you can still buy dozens of Jung books in bookstores even though his archetypes idea is intellectually and empirically bankrupt, and why you can find all sorts of books by Aleister Crowley, even though he was basically teaching outmoded ceremonial magic to people having particularly nasty midlife crises.

As you try to wrap your brain around the physics stuff--AS THIS PROCESSING IS GOING ON--the author whirls over to the kabbalistic Etz Chaim, then on to esoteric Christian theology, then onto Hindu physiology, astral projection, and so on. Your brain gets the incorrect impression that 1) substantive claims about reality are being advanced, even though they are not, and 2) these claims connect diverse branches of esoteric knowledge--scientific, religious, metaphysical--in ways which provide coherent and astonishing meaning. It's the same thing that the kabbalist Abraham Abulafia used to get up to when he would permute the names of God with every possible sequence of vowels, and it's the same reason that makes Robert Anton Wilson's books seem so impressive when read quickly and when high (or so I'm told).

To cure yourself, just pick ONE of these connections--say, the one between the three "whorls" and the top three sephiroth on the Tree of Life--and ask yourself this: why is this connection being made? What is the evidence for it? If it turns out that this connection is incorrect or inadequate, how will we know? Why not instead connect the three whorls with the three levels of the world found in ancient Norse mythology, or the supposed triad of supreme deities in Hinduism, or the three bodies of the Buddha, etc.?

Human minds love this sort of symbolism--the baptism that is also like the Noachian Flood, but is also like Jonah being swallowed by a fish, but is also like bathing, but is also like Christ rising from the dead, etc. But anytime this symbolism tries to gear into empirical science, the result is ALWAYS woo, because the claims being made are NEVER real, determinate claims.

Hope that was useful

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 12:54:53 PM PDT
Re original post: My impression is that the Phillips thing is BS. Since all of the brane, higher-dimensional, and other related stuff is at present speculation, it isn't easily possible to SHOW that it is BS -- but until such time as any of his stuff can make testable predictions, I am perfectly happy to continue to consider it to be BS.

Posted on Apr 7, 2012 3:13:37 PM PDT
Thanks for the responses.And also he uses concept of "shadow matter".Nowdays it doesn't seem to be popular concept among physicists,still remains hypothetical and speculative.And lacking scientific evidence

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 3:16:09 PM PDT
reply to Alexander Zlotnik's post:

shadow matter - is that the same as dark matter
in any case all speculation and very unprovable

Posted on Apr 7, 2012 4:00:02 PM PDT
shadow matter predicted to exist by superstring theories,but still speculative and hypothetical.It is one of the canditates for the dark matter.

Posted on Apr 9, 2012 7:21:50 AM PDT
Also : at the beginnig of the chapter 6 he 2 times states "my theory".It may mean ,that he not just "builds" on mainstream but adds something from himself."In my theory, n = 11 and the 15-dimensional space has the form:

15 = S×C×C', "

and
"My theory provides a natural explanation of why these two kinds of matter appear in superstring theory: an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space"

By the way,to me,at lest,these look like somewhat abritrary claims,and consideration of higher,15-dimensional space appears to be pretty speculative
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  4
Total posts:  9
Initial post:  Apr 5, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions