The Impossible Separation of Man’s Consciousness and His Material Self: A look at the fallacy of the mind/body duality

Call it what you want…mind and body dichotomy, flesh and soul, flesh and spirit, consciousness and existence.  They are all the same fallacy, and they plague Christianity like…well, like the plague. And what’s more, even science itself assumes that human consciousness can somehow be removed from the existence of the material body.  In fact, it is so ingrained in our thinking that even the smartest people in the world seem to miss the massive logical contradiction staring them in the face and daring them to take notice.  If they could but for a moment walk forwards even a step, out from their stubborn and all pervasive insanity, they would trip over it and chip a tooth.

Just yesterday I had the displeasure of reading a silly article concerning a silly study entitled: Free Will Could be the Result of ‘Background Noise’ in the Brain, Study Suggests, and you can read it in its entirety here.

The second sentence reads thus:

“It has previously been suggested that our perceived ability to make autonomous choices is an illusion – and now scientists from the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California, Davis, have found that free will may actually be the result of electrical activity in the brain.”

Now, I have an entire article outlined on this study and ready to be typed up, and all in due time, but suffice to say, for now, that the rational mind…hell, even the mind which occasionally entertains mild common sense needs no more than this sentence to debunk the study in its entirety and obliterate its ridiculous premise.  This is nothing more than a “scientific” approach to the mind/body dichotomy, which heretofore will be referred to as the “mind body contradiction”.  It is a “scientific” attempt to reconcile mutually exclusive absolutes:  the physical body of man, and his “mind”, or “thoughts”, which are assumed to be somehow outside of this physical body but which, of course, cannot be observed absent the physical body, making the concept of the “mind” categorically unknowable apart from the physical body.

Put simply, what I mean is that man has NO frame of reference for a “mind” or  “thoughts” or a “consciousness”, or a “spirit” or a “soul”, without the body, because man cannot see past the context of his own consciousness which is observably and objectively a direct function of his physical body.  Man can make no claim to any such thing as consciousness containing thoughts and knowledge absent the body because the body, which includes the brain, is the singular (i.e. only) context man has.  There is no such thing as YOU apart from the physical you.  To claim otherwise obligates you to verify this…which means rationally, and without appealing to contradiction or mysticism (e.g., for Christians, the Bible “says” so”…this is a non-argument; the Bible is not proof of itself, for if it were, then man would be categorically irrelevant…ponder that), yes, it obligates you to verify objectively just how this can be true.  And how do you propose to do that apart from your body?

Take your time, I’ll wait.

Ho dee hum….

Okay, I’m impatient, so let me save you the time.

You can’t.  Period.  Full stop.

For as soon as you make an appeal to a “you” apart from your physical body, you have already destroyed your own argument.  For in order for you to declare that there is a mind or a soul or a spirit or a consciousness apart from your body you need to use what?  Language.  Communication.  You need words, or gestures, or pictures, or Morse code, or tongue clicks…hell, even the Vulcan mind meld requires Spock to use of his hands.

Do you see what I mean?  Communication requires language, and language requires a conscious agent, and that agent requires an objective distinction between ITSELF and OTHER(S) (i.e. what is not it), and that?  Requires an observable, spatial, literal, physical distinction.  And that requires a body.

So before you can even make the argument for the separation of body and mind you MUST concede the axiom that “I must be physically distinct from that which is NOT me, (YOU, for instance), in order to validate my assumption that I am not really me, but am me, the physical body, and something ELSE…that is, the “me”, which is my “mind/spirit/consciousness”, which is me, also, but then again, is not me at the same time”; and thus, you have already conceded that your assumption is false.  Your mind and your body are not distinct; for one is the other and the other is the one.  And this is due to the simple fact that you cannot be both you and NOT you.  YOU are metaphysically singular, period, and your epistemology is a direct function (extension) of that metaphyic…and remember, Argo’s Universal Truth Number One:  Whatever is a direct function of an absolute IS the absolute.  That holds true in this case.  You have no other context but your conscious self, which IS, absolutely, and is absolutely and observably and objectively tied to your physical body, by necessity.  Absent the physical parameters of absolute SELF, there can be no you at all.  And in your attempt to argue that your mind is YOU as distinct from the YOU which is your physical body, you run into the impossible contradiction I just mentioned:  you cannot be you and NOT you at the same time.  The SELF is a metaphysical singularity.  It cannot be parsed.  How we choose to label our attributes on a conceptual level is up to us; but pretending those attributes are full-on metaphysical absolutes encompassing the totality of SELF distinct from the root metaphysic is to make a mutually exclusive argument.  And this is madness.

Incidentally, this is the very reason why I reject the doctrine of the Trinity.  It attempts to make God a rank, self-canceling, contradiction in terms.  We may label God’s attributes according to our need and our natural right to organize our environment efficaciously.  But may not make God a party to our mystical existential horseshit.

“But, Argo!” you protest.  “Aren’t you proving the article’s point?  Man doesn’t have a mind of his own?  Man cannot think, because he cannot choose?”

Well…no exactly, though I get the question.  This article is really trying to play both sides of the epistemological fence, and these scientists are utterly contradicting (and making asses out of) themselves in the process.  They want their epistemological cake and to eat it, too.  On the one hand they want to argue that man has no free will, which means he has no thoughts of his own (for a man with no free will cannot claim his own thoughts), and cannot make any claim to knowledge of any kind, and that choice is an illusion, and as such, man is merely a product of the laws or processes of nature which determine his every move, physically and cognitively; that man as an individual SELF is a lie, and that no such “you” exists as it were, for what you think is “you” is nothing more than the beeps and bells and whizzes and bangs of neurons which break down into atoms, which break down into all manner of particles, and from there the determinative force of the mathematical proofs of Standard Model is found in the wheelhouse steering the ship of YOU into its determined infinite oblivion.

On the other hand, they want to make this claim:  Look what we have discovered!  Look what we know!  We have learned that we have no free will.

Anyone besides me have a problem with this?  They are claiming that they KNOW that man cannot KNOW ANYTHING; because what this article means is that man is not himself.  Man has no free will…all choice is an illusion; any thoughts and appeals to individual knowledge of anything is a lie, and this includes the SELF.  My point is that there can be no scientist who can discover and thus claim to know that man has no free will.  This is a flagrant and embarrassing contradiction in terms.  And the fact that they so readily assume that this is a reasonable position, to the point where they would take the time to secure the grant money, requisition the student assistants, run the experiment, and publish the findings shows you just how inept science is at employing anything even approximating consistent thinking…and I might even say common sense.  They are blind to the contradiction, and this is because they, fundamentally, are Platonists.  They concede a “forms and shadows” reality…a material and spirit dichotomy.  A consciousness and existence distinction.  A mutually exclusive mind/body separation.  They fundamentally and wholly believe it is possible for man to know something while at the same time they declare that man is merely an effect of some external determinative force which entirely subverts man’s existence as anything distinct.  Man is not really man, and yet man can somehow know something.  Like this:  Free will is an illusion; a product of brain activity.

If this isn’t a bleak and depressing sign of where our society is headed intellectually, at the very least it is a frightening one.  The screams of the Jewish children burning to death in the ovens of Auschwitz were merely the perfunctory effect of brainwaves as governed by the mathematical equations which determine all the outcomes of the cosmos.  Suffering and torment are an illusion.

Think this is hyperbole?  I defy you to argue rationally how this is not the logical conclusion of the very premise being made in this dangerous article.  I dare you.  Explain to me why it is an impossible leap of logic to go from “man has no free will, and no thoughts he can claim as his own; all his choices are merely the determinative outcome of biologic electrical impulses” to “Fuck it, just fry ’em.  It’s not like they are aware of it anyway…what is a ‘human being’ after all?”

Human beings, like the fire which consumes them, are but a concept…a cognitive mist, and not even that.  For even the mist of cognition is a lie.  A process of an un-seeable, indifferent, automatic universe which begins and ends at yet more processes.  The universe is endless processes upon processes.  Nothing is real.

Finally, we must ask this question:  What compels this brain activity, exactly?  Why, the “laws of nature which govern”, of course!  The mathematical proofs which are the “language of the cosmos”! Forces which deny consciousness and exist beyond the material world, and which are thus unobservable and therefore unknowable and mutually exclusive to it but nevertheless exist, the geniuses would have us all assume.

I have said it once and I’ll say it a million times:  do not look to science for truth.  Scientists are mystics, philosophically speaking, pure and simple.  They are the most obtuse motherfuckers around when it comes to discerning the nature of reality.  And articles like this make me despise the arrogance of the mathematical elite even more.   For all of Stephen Hawking’s articles, degrees, and awards, he is a staggering dolt when it comes to seeing the universe  through rational eyes.

So, for the purposes of this article, let us examine specifically the fallacy of the separation of consciousness and existence, for that is what this kind of thing is all about.  The devil’s philosophy has always been about separating man from himself, and this is accomplished with great success in the dichotomies I have illustrated, both in this article specifically and others on my blog.  Mind and body, ideas and behavior, spirit and flesh…it all leads to the same place:  man is not himself.  Therefore, he has no right to claim ownership of himself.  The appeal, so easily seen in the “free will” study, is that man is not really man; and yet, knowledge is somehow possible.

How do they get around this, exactly?  What is the assumption which lets them get away, at least in their own minds and the minds of their peers, with this rational larceny?

I will answer this with a question:  Is knowledge possible by everyone?

Of course not!

Knowledge is purely given to those who are “called” to know.  Those who have been given the grace to perceive the truth.  The scientist who can claim that HE knows that YOU cannot know is he who is cosmically destined to rule you…to compel you towards your inevitable and sole moral obligation:  death in service to the determinative and absolute truth outside of you.  For he is the proxy incarnate.  He is the Person of the Truth.

It is, after all, a mathematical certainty.

Part two next.

 

 

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “The Impossible Separation of Man’s Consciousness and His Material Self: A look at the fallacy of the mind/body duality

  1. The thought that some little fucker – the apex of genetic selection – or a fluke of some sort – gets to press the button at the end and we all can it is somewhat ironic.

    Methinks these scientists take ego-death too seriously. Level 4 – level 5 tripping. Out of their skulls. The scientists remove emotions to the point that they just do not exist – therefore we are not.

    ” I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And in this a question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void. I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and the fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved. – Ekhardt Tolle

    The Course in Miracles and also its latest avatar, Byron Katie, make similar claims.
    “The world is as you believe it to be. It can never be more or less than that.” – Byron Katie
    *What were you before your first memory?Byron Katie
    “Are what you think, what you say, and what you do separate? Ouch!” – BK

  2. “Eat, shit and die.” Could be some title to a profound discussion about the nature of man and life. “Eat shit and die” might be something that Benjamin Franklin might have said. Perhaps common sense. Nuance people.

  3. Argo,

    I left a comment at PPT under Bo’s TANC video. Check it out if you get a chance.

    Was glad you spoke up. Glad you were there. It wouldn’t have been as good without your astute input!

    I really enjoyed your comments.

    BTW, does anyone remember Andrea Yates? “She believed that the children would be tormented and perish in the fires of hell unless they were killed,” Dr. Melissa Ferguson testified.

    Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2002/03/Bad-Religion-Partially-To-Blame-For-Tragedy-In-Texas.aspx#GdA6EC5c6ygdg34b.99

  4. Needing a body to communicate physically to another body one’s claim that one also has a spirit, does not logically show that there is no spirit! It simply means that bodies cannot communicate spiritually. That’s no surprise – they are physical, not spiritual, after all.
    Here’s a thought. If we were purely physical, material bodies, we would be wholly and nothing but atoms. As such we would in every atom be obeying the laws of physics, of atomic forces. With which atoms would we then direct some of our atomic motions to follow other paths counter to the laws of physics, of atomic forces, and with which atoms would we select those paths? And what would enable us to direct these controlling atoms to make their own non-atomic-force-controlled directives? And what would ‘us’ be, if apart from these atoms? No, atoms cannot choose to behave in a way that is counter to the forces on them. Just as a ball cannot choose to roll uphill. Atoms have no will, no matter how you arrange them, whether as a dust cloud in space or millions of neurons. If we are purely atoms, any truly free will to choose to behave in some way other than what the atoms were already going to behave is impossible as there is nothing above the atomic to choose it with, and free will *must* be an effect and illusion arising from the quantum behaviour of these atoms in their current complex organisation.
    Free will requires control over the atomic world, i.e. ‘over-atomic’ or ‘super-natural’ control.
    Finally, there are a more examples of the spirit world’s interaction with the physical world than you have time to find in your life. I myself have used the spirit world to know and control things.

  5. I think I may have misunderstood you, actually, so my relevance is not clear. Let me try to clarify please.
    You make 2 main points. Forgive me if I summarise them incorrectly.
    1. You state that because we operate, conclude and communicate – do and experience everything – via our physical body, we cannot have a *separate* non-physical entity, but that the two (mind and body) are one.
    > I believe that your point is logically flawed. Being aware only of things in reference to the body does not logically preclude a separate dimension of self which can exist apart from the body, of which up to now at least one is simply not aware. And body-to-body communication necessarily having to be physical does not logically preclude spirit-to-spirit communication.
    2. Then, to refute the sequiter that mind is an illusion of body, you recognize that scientists trying to show that man has no free will, cannot show it, by definition; and believing in lack of free will will lead to horrible consequences.
    > This doesn’t actually logical refute the possibility that we actually do not have free will, though, and you never show how it is not possible that mind is not an illusion of body.
    You don’t actually state it afterwards but your point seems to be that because we *do* have free will, and know that cruelty is wrong, mind is not an illusion of body, but a real part of man.
    > But, if we do have free will, then we necessarily have another *super-natural* dimension involved in our make-up than the natural, material one. Call it spirit. Free will requires non-atomic, super-natural spirit to exist. If spirit exists and has power over the natural, it is not subordinate to nor arising from the natural, but something above and separatable from the natural. It may interact with the natural, but it is not a part of the natural.
    You cannot have your cake (our mind and body are one) and eat it (we have free will). In fact in trying to do so you validate the concept of the trinity without realizing it. We are two in one: spirit + body. You would like to deny the ‘two’, but it is not possible to do so and still claim free will.
    > The greatest difficulty to seeing this as true is being aware of the spirit self. If you were aware of the spirit world and your independent spirit self (as many are) you would have no problem acknowledging its existence. But you only know the physical world and so it seems impossible to you that you can have a spirit self independent of the body.
    3. You say “There is no such thing as YOU apart from the physical you. To claim otherwise obligates you to verify this”.
    > But you provide no proof of your own claim. You say only, ‘this is all we can see, taste, touch, hear…’. But of course one cannot sense or show a spirit world with a physical body if they are different dimensions, and the one is above the other. Your case is simply a presentation of the five senses as all we have, without scientific or philosophical arguments, thrown into your opponent’s court.
    I don’t think you can place the burden of proof on your opponent just because all you know is physical. It should be sufficient just to show that there may well be a spiritual dimension of self.
    But nevertheless, free will does require the existence of a super-natural spirit in charge of the physical. In other words, if we have free will, we do have spirit, and are not just a physical being, but two in one.
    > You also do another odd thing, and require that the Bible not be used as evidence, because the Bible is not proof of itself. I don’t think it needs to be proof of itself to be authoritative, it only needs to be validated. It claims to be the inspired word of God, and so far it’s been 100% correct in history and prophecy. Furthermore it’s been personally backed up by Jesus Christ who said of himself, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”, and rose from the dead to prove it. These are not mystical affirmations but real world, courtroom evidences. I think it’s pretty reliable. So I will quote a passage from it, by the apostle Paul: “2 Corinthians 12:3-4 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knows;), how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
    > Finally, I have dealt with many purely spiritual things and several spiritual beings and communications. I know from personal experience the difference between my spirit and my soul and my body. This is not provided as an argument to support my case, but as food for thought. If you choose to disbelieve me, then it’s no help to you. But if you reckon that I may be telling the truth here, it’s an invitation to you to find out more for yourself.

  6. Anthony,

    Again, you’ve thrown a lot out here. Let me see if I can parse down my position succinctly.

    My point is simply this: the physical body is the means by which we know and do anything. Without the frame of reference of the physical self, we have no way of acknowledging the the existence of a “spirit world” or the “laws of physics”. If I throw myself in front of a bus, you will notice a distinct change in my consciousness (I will either be dead or I will be severely cognitively traumatized). This is objective proof that the physical brain is the source of man’s awareness. And while I concede that consciousness cannot be directly observed, this does not imply the existence of a spirit realm, because I submit that all matter is infinite at its root. Since infinity cannot be observed, ALL material reality can only be defined by concepts describing the relative movement of ourselves to our environment. And this is precisely how man operates…via a conceptual paradigm by which he organizes his universe to promote his own SELF, his own LIFE.

    Apart from the body, you have no reference by which to be aware of any spirit. The only way you can define your “spiritual” experience is within the context of what you have ALREADY and previously observed via your physical senses. If your physical body is not required to provide meaningful context to your spiritual experience then the spirit is, by definition, mutually exclusive to the body. And as such, it is irrelevant to it. There is no meaningful interaction, and no reciprocity nor efficacious connection. therefore the argument is either A. moot, or B. an exercise in mysticism. The only way you can convince someone to agree with your idea is then through either force, or by arguing that the other person must simply accept it, which is precisely what you have done above:

    “But of course one cannot sense or show a spirit world with a physical body if they are different dimensions, and the one is above the other.”

    There is no rational argument then to support the idea of a separate spirit, and reason is worthless. And this is why your position always boils down to who has the means and will to violently force others into his ideas. You cannot rationally argue your “truth”, so you make a claim to your superior gnosis, and those who disagree have simply not been divinely enlightened. Thus, your moral superiority demands that they be compelled. Sooner or later, it ALWAYS dissolves into violence and force.

    Apart from the material you have no reference by which to know of any “laws of physics”. Remove what is physical, and you thus remove the relevance and therefore the definition and meaning (even “existence”) of any “spirit” or “laws of physics”. This makes the spirit and laws of physics a DIRECT function of the physical universe (including your body). They do not exist unless the physical exists. The physical DIRECTLY causes them, which thus relegates them to conceptual, not actual, status. Therefore, there is NO separation between physical and spirit…for spirit is merely a concept derived from man to explain a relative relationship to his environment; and the same thing is true for the laws of physics.

    Finally, if the Bible has “authority”, the implication is that it is just and right to FORCE people to comply with it. And who does the forcing? Not the Bible, but those who supposedly carry its only “right” interpretation.

    Scary, shit, Anthony. Scary.

    And I think you are Tom.

  7. “You cannot have your cake (our mind and body are one) and eat it (we have free will). In fact in trying to do so you validate the concept of the trinity without realizing it. We are two in one: spirit + body. You would like to deny the ‘two’, but it is not possible to do so and still claim free will.”

    Wrong. You suppose that I concede the actual existence and causal power of the “laws of physics”. You suppose incorrectly. The “laws of physics”, mathematics, etc. are concepts, period. And as such, they posses no ability to influence what IS. What IS does what it does, period. And it is man’s ability to conceptualize which creates an organizational paradigm by which man can define the universe and affirm his life by integrating it to HIMSELF.

    To concede the actuality and causal power of “natural laws” is rank determinism. And I categorically deny this.

  8. “I believe that your point is logically flawed. Being aware only of things in reference to the body does not logically preclude a separate dimension of self which can exist apart from the body, of which up to now at least one is simply not aware.”

    On the contrary, this is precisely what it does. UNawareness is by definition no rational basis for any efficacious reality or reasonable truth. To pursue life as a function of what you are aware of AND in equal measure that which your are unaware of is simply illogical. This would mean that you are ALWAYS operating on incomplete knowledge, and this is a recipe for an inadequate epistemology, which has been the philosophical root of tyranny and despotism for thousands of years.

  9. I promise you I am not this Tom 🙂 I am on facebook as Anthony Philip Rose and emailable at antandcharmi (at) btinternet (dot) com.
    But I regret that I’m not going to be able to answer your points above, because – and I’m going to speak very frankly here because there’s no other way, but I mean it kindly – you are taking some very basic mis-steps in logic, and doing so very confidently, which means that I won’t get very far with even very basic points. I think you’d get a lot out of taking the above conversation to a logician or philosopher who can help you see your mis-steps.
    Just as one example, to prove what I’m saying above, where I say above that being aware only of the body till now does not preclude the existence of spirit, you say that it does, because one cannot live according to that of which you are unaware. This doesn’t address the possibility of spirit existence at all. It’s like one caterpillar (or butterfly) saying to another caterpillar, “not knowing anything about flight does not mean it does not exist”, and the other saying, “Yes it does, because flight cannot exist if you don’t know about it.” The thing is, you can find out about it.

    In addition, if you don’t rely on the laws of physics for your argument and consider matter to be infinite with resulting mysterious powers of choice, you are floating way out field in self-founded mysticism.

    Ultimately, either you make up your own rules and ideas, or you find enough evidence that there is a Maker who has already made them up. I’m not sure where you stand here, and if you disregard the latter as it seems, what your motive is for doing so, but in a friendly way I just want to say, I think you’re in big trouble.
    And if you can hear me, and see a motive for ignoring, say, the Bible, in yourself, think about it.
    And if you feel angry at my challenging you like this, firstly, I’m not trolling, I sincerely think you may be driving down the wrong side of the road and a honk is going to hurt less than leaving you alone, and secondly, maybe, just maybe, that anger is defensive of that motive.
    This is my last post, however, if you’d like to reply, I will read it.
    PS. Just for the record, you have misread me, I have not attempted to persuade you in my previous comments by force or claim to knowledge. I’ve been purely logical in my arguments. I have added afterwards that I do experience spirit, but that, as stated, is not presented as an argument nor as authoritarian but as a call to go over the earlier arguments more carefully. What is the butterfly to say to the caterpillar, when he sees the fire coming? He uses every argument at his disposal, and *also* presents his eye-witness.

  10. Anthony,

    My apologies for assuming you were Tom. In any case, it is neither here nor there and so I should not have brought it up. My bad.

    In the case of your caterpillar example, you are contradicting your definition of the “spirit world” in which you describe a place/state of being which is mutually exclusive of the physical…which means that man must remain wholly unaware of it until it is “revealed”, somehow. He has no means to pursue it with his physical senses, according to your own definition. Unless of course you are arguing that man has senses beyond his physical which means that the physical and the spiritual are not exclusive but are, in fact, a part of the same metaphysical oneness which IS man’s SELF. In this case the question then becomes one of merely semantics and not one of actual existential reality: What “part” of man’s singularity do we define as “spirit” and which do we define as “physical”? Both become purely conceptual, not actual, and so it really doesn’t change my argument. Man is what he is, period. There is no mind/body or spirit/physical dichotomy or distinction at all except in how man chooses to conceptualize his SELF. And in your example, the second caterpillar is not arguing for the existence of an exclusive realm of existential reality that utterly defies the one which frames the conversation. You are comparing apples and oranges with that example.

    And this is what I mean when I say that according to you, man’s reality remains a perpetual function of “unawareness”, which destroys man’s ability to really know anything at all. The “spirit” being wholly distinct from the “physical” reality of man is one which, again, defies any existential equality between the two. In such a case, man is parsed infinitely in two at the metaphysical level, and his knowledge thus at any given moment is entirely incomplete. Which makes it impossible for man to argue for any truth at all, ever. And this why your assumptions again always boil down to who has the bigger gun and the will to use it. Man can NEVER be in a position to know truth because he, himself, is always a function at the root existential level of two (or more) mutually exclusive states of being (mind and body, body and soul, spirit and body). Thus, he never gets to say what is true and good or not, because how could he know? He cannot know anything fully, and thus he must be FORCED into right thinking and behavior by the those who have been somehow given the “grace to perceive”.

  11. “In addition, if you don’t rely on the laws of physics for your argument and consider matter to be infinite with resulting mysterious powers of choice, you are floating way out field in self-founded mysticism.”

    Hardly, Anthony. There is a reason the Standard Model trends towards infinity, and why physicists are consequently scurrying to come up with any and every hair-brained theory to try to plug the yawning gaps in their conclusions, which cursory observations of the universe are revealing with staggering frequency. For example, take dark matter. Here is a substance which cannot be directly observed (and it is not the same as a black hole…for black holes are observable as suns and supernovas prior…as opposed to dark matter, which exist perpetually only indirectly) and yet we are somehow expected to assume it is responsible for 90% of the universe’s mass (matter plus its equally unobservable causal force, dark energy). This is the current trend in physics in order to resuscitate a fledgling model which is proving less and less a viable descriptor of reality every day. There is nothing more mystical about my notion that matter is infinite than there is the scientific community’s clamoring about the need for a “new physics” to evolve their current theories.

    I can defend my idea rationally, and there is no counter argument. For what do we suppose the root of all matter is if not an infinite “particle”…or rather, that which has no end or beginning and thus is mitigated by something which the current models do not explain? Are you suggesting that there can be a root particle which is indivisible but which exists independently of other particles in a bubble of spacetime? How on earth is that possible? For any particle that exists in space cannot be said to be infinitely what it is. If it infinitely and absolutely is what it is then it has no up side, no down side, no inside, no outside, no left, no right, etc. Its up is its down and its left is its right…so where does the space go, exactly?

    It goes nowhere. The particle is infinite, endless, and it is this particle which somehow interacts with other particles according to the current standard model? Please. Impossible. Clearly there is something science is not grasping.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s