Wisdom is to know by Madonna-Megara Morgana-Helena Holloway

Madonna-Megara Holloway

Good morning Branko. I wanted to give you a bit of background on the statement I made. I actually started my search in trying to understand the nature of time and space plus many other issues back in 1969 following an essay question on the wave particle duality of light in high school. I was deeply discontent with the status of scientific understanding. It has taken my 50 years and thousand of hours to write this response to you and as I approach 70, I am not concerned with how the science community relates to my work.

As the brief introduction states about me the foundation of NOE Theory comes from the Vedas and other ancient text. I can only state that this is what the ancient text is saying. I can't change it. Also, I am the coordinator - not the author and I work with many others. I cannot change what is not mine.

Please note that in Einstein's original paper he referred to a particle of time - I have attached a .jpg for you. Since his original published article most editors have worked diligently to remove these words and I had to go to the original Germany and find the original English translation. I have also attached another jpg file for you. The concept is complicated but is explained in greater detail in the book.

Is Space/Time Fractal and Supersymmetric?

What if there is just one "law" that defines reality absolutely, i.e., all additional theories are only its fractal or iterative projections? This "law" may be the energy conservation or equivalence principle: the law that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is no effect without equal and opposite cause and vice versa! Hence, is Space the fractal reaction of Time, just as Time is the fractal reaction of Space? NOE postulates that Space and Time are inverse fractal projections of an inertial reality, in between, which is neither Space nor Time but both.

Is Duality a Fractal Space/Time Reality?

Duality is a reality of two equal opposites, where one negates another. Above is real only in perspective from below; left is real only from right, black is real only in white contrast and right is real only in comparison with wrong.

One equal opposite needs to stand in repetitive or fractal negation of another in Space/Time to give the illusion of Duality. Space and Time are positive/negative results of self-comparison, because only self-interference is real! Space negates passage of Time and passage of Time negates Space.

Space/Time is double negation that creates singular affirmation, which is perceived as Inertia or Gravity. Double negation is affirmation...!Attachment #1: Figure_106_Particle_of_Time.jpg Attachment #2: Page_261.jpg

Madonna-Megara Holloway

One other point, when analysing the nature of consciousness the attached figure is given.

With warmest regards,

MMAttachment #1: Relativity_of_Consciousness_v2.jpg.png

Branko Zivlak

Dear Madonna-Megara Morgan-Helen Holloway,

Thanks for your reply.

Your emphasis on the importance of opposites is essential. You can see mathematically determined important opposites in physics here: https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/6423

Regards

Branko

Madonna-Megara Holloway

Thank you Branko - I looked at your site and decided to not expand my field of sites. Right now, NOE Theory sits on ResearchGate and Academia plus a private think tank which I am an invited member.

It is important to note as indicated in footnote 478 (see attached):

478 "There is, of course, one final observation to be made: in terms of the present politics of publishing scientific papers, de Broglie's contribution could never have been published because it only essentially contains speculations. However, one can just as well say that this paper proves that speculations are an essential part of physics; without them, no new ideas and theories are born. Quantum mechanics has to be regarded as a true rupture in the history of physics, as a revolution in the philosophy of science -- a revolution that desperately needed speculations and deviations beyond well-accepted ways of thinking." P. Weinberger.

As of today, NOE has received 10,000 downloads from these two sites but as with de Broglie, since the theory appears to be speculation, I cannot get it published. The complexity lies in the lack of understanding in the source material. You will note on the topic of the photon there is a quote on page 347 and again on page 349. The topic is complex and obtuse. The reason I am stressing de Broglie, the photon and Einstein is because it relates to the new TOE, the long-sought-after theory of Hawkins.

Photons having matter means there is a density gradient centrifugation which creates a discontinuous gradient as the wave-particle descends to the 7th plane of the Cosmic Physical plane.

With regards and respect, MMAttachment #1: Page_347_to_348.jpg

Madonna-Megara Holloway

one of the jpgs did not load properly. Trying again.

Madonna-Megara Holloway

I reduced the file size. Trying again.Attachment #1: Page_349_to_350.png

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Madonna-Megara Morgan-Helen Holloway,

A very interesting and important essay in the Cartesian spirit of doubt. You pose the right question: "What if there is just one "law" that defines reality absolutely, i.e., all additional theories are only its fractal or iterative projections?»

What is this "Law" that governs the Universe? What is its onto-logical "construction"? ... Pavel Florensky left a good philosophical testament to physicists and mathematicians: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is a spaceunderstanding".

What is the ontological structure of space that establishes this Law of Cosmos (Universe)? What is the connection between "matter" and "space" (material / ideal)?

Planck and Einstein began more than a hundred years ago the Big Ontological coup in the foundations of science. But this coup was not completed. Any theory that claims to be fundamental must have an ontological justification (basification). Quantum theory and General relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalist) theories without an ontological basification. Therefore, it makes no sense to combine them, let each work on their own "field". Today, in order for science to overcome the crisis of understanding in a philosophical basis, the holistic paradigm -- the Universe as a whole -- must come to the aid of the mechanistic paradigm (atomic), the paradigm of the part.

Please explain what is the ontological structure at the base of your philosophical system and which can be the basis of knowledge in general?

Respectfully, Vladimir

Madonna-Megara Holloway

Sorry for the delay Vladimir. Strange times indeed. My interpretation of your question is you are seeking to understand how does NOE Theory define the fundamental concept of reality.

Here is a short statement:

The Question is not what's the Answer?

The Question is what's the Question?

Is it all an elaborate Magic Show?

Is Reality an ephemeral Perception, an Illusion?

What is the framework of this Synchronised Matrix machine?

What triggers Darwin's Puzzle: Evolution via Natural Selection?

Quantum Intelligence: Where does Space-Time come from?

Quantum Entanglement: Why does distance not matter?

Is there any answer save Unity Consciousness?

What's Out There which Isn't Within?

What we see, why it changes with Observation?

Ah! so, the Phantasm is just a Magic Show?

How then to decrypt it, why not harness it?

So go, go with the Fractal flow...

DK Matai, Holistic Quantum Relativity, "Quantum Coherence and Entanglement" Workshop, CERN, Geneva, 2008

Michael muteru

beautiful essay. very inspiring questions.voted.i presume you were heading here anthropic bias. kindly read/rate my essay here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.your ideas are greatly appreciated.

Jonathan Dickau

This paper is a delight!

Of course; it is a bit over the top and somewhat derivative. But it was like a tour de force of fun ideas, all wrapped up in one document. I enjoyed what you have to say, and I find many points of agreement, and common threads. In fact; it is almost as though you harvested the fruit of seeds I planted 10-15 years ago. I was the original author of the Wikipedia entry on 'Fractal Cosmology' for example.

However; I almost have to out myself to give you a proper review, so here goes. Would you believe I'm a little like my namesake in "Doctor Strange" who studied the Mystic Arts for years before stepping aside to use some of the wisdom acquired to lead a 'normal' life? I used it to help my study of Physics too. You might like my Octonion poetry just published in the Scientific God Journal.

This paper is provocative and suggestive, but it lacks a certain definiteness that would make it a scientific analysis. You do address the questions raised by the organizers and think that the idea we need to examine the answers from what you call the etheric view, where life, mind, and consciousness are the driving power behind physical evolution is worthy of merit.

You get high marks from me, but not full credit. I would need to see more of your unique glue holding the ideas together in a congruent way. This work raises interesting questions but it does not offer a definite answer to those issues. So it is in a way incomplete. Still a lot more on topic than some essays, and you strive to explicate your own unique answers.

Best,

Jonathan

pjackson

Madonna,

Well time's nearly up and I didn't get to re-read it, to little time and to many to read! But I have come back to score it as promised. I hope to also pick up on the links you've posted at a later time. My score will higher than it's present undervalued rating. It's likely been hit by some 'tactical' 1 scores as mine has. I hope fqXi will finally act to discourage that.

Very best

Peter

« Previous Page