KHTK Postulates for Physics – Part 1

c1

Reference: KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics – Part 1

The starting postulates for Physics are the same as those for Metaphysics as stated in the reference above.

The theoretical ground state for this universe is inertia-less primordial field, which, when disturbed, gives rise to the electromagnetic phenomenon with inertia. Motion is not infinite because motion is defined by inertia. The universe is kept together only because there is inertia. We can walk only because there is friction. This earth can exist only because there is inertia.

These postulate are as workable as they produces observations consistent with reality. There are no absolute certainties. One can always come up with better postulates.

That is how science makes progress. Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but there may possibly be a wider context in which the speed of light is a special case.

.

KHTK Postulate P1: At the physical level the disturbance in the inertia-less primordial field takes the form of undulating electric and magnetic fields of finite frequency, wavelength and period.

The familiar electromagnetic wave is understood to be transverse in nature. It is like the ripples formed on the surface of a pond when a stone is dropped. The particles of water move up and down in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the ripple.

On the other hand, the sound wave formed in air when we speak is longitudinal in nature. It is a pressure wave in which the particles of air move back and forth along the same direction in which the wave propagates.

The transverse wave seems to form at the interface of two different media, such as, between water and air while the longitudinal disturbance seems to form within a single media, such as, within air, or within water. The electromagnetic disturbance, being transverse in nature, seems to require an interface between two different media. We recognize this interface to be formed by electric and magnetic fields.

.

KHTK Postulate P2: Increasing electromagnetic disturbance may be defined in terms of levels of doubling frequency.

These disturbance levels are defined in KHTK Postulate M-4 as DL0, DL1, DL2, etc. The frequency of disturbance level “n” (DLn) is defined as “2n

The disturbance level for visible light may be approximated as DL49 (frequency 249). The disturbance level of radio waves may be approximated as DL27 (frequency 227). And the disturbance level of gamma rays may be approximated at DL65 (frequency 265).

.

KHTK Postulate P3: The basic electromagnetic disturbance determines the characteristics of space, time, and inertia.

The disturbance, as motion, is made up of different states. The idea of different states provides the characteristic called space. The idea of the progression of such states provides the characteristic called time. The idea of structure due to these states provides the characteristic called inertia.

The ideas of space, time and inertia are inherent to disturbance (motion). This may seem counter-intuitive because we observe objects moving in space and time. But the solid objects are at a much higher disturbance levels than the background.

.

KHTK Postulate P4: With increasing disturbance levels, the inertia of disturbance increases.

As frequency of the disturbance increases it provides greater rigidity to its structure, and therefore, the inertia also increases. This inertia is expressed as resistance. A measure of this inertia is provided by permittivity and permeability “of space”.

  • Permittivity is the measure of the resistance that is encountered when forming an electric field in a medium. The permittivity of classical vacuum, or free space, is about 8.85 × 10−12 Farads/meter.
  • Permeability is the measure of the ability of a material to support the formation of a magnetic field within itself. The permeability of classical vacuum, or free space, is about 1.26 ×10−6 Henries per meter.

.

KHTK Postulate P5: With increasing disturbance levels, space and time condense.

Increasing disturbance levels are accompanied by a shortening of wavelength and period. While increasing frequency indicates greater inertia, the shortening of wavelength and period indicate condensing space and time.

.

Next: 

KHTK Postulates for Physics – Part 2

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • MarkNR  On February 17, 2014 at 5:40 AM

    Your postulates seem to be coming together.
    Mark

  • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 5:47 AM

    The detailed math needs to be worked out now to make further adjustments.

  • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 7:27 AM

    The positive disturbance levels proceed in the direction of positive infinity. They seem to define the domain of Physics.

    I believe that there are negative disturbance levels that proceed in the direction of negative infinity. These may define the domain of Metaphysics.

    • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 12:17 AM

      At first glance I thought I understood what you meant but then I wondered where to place (0,0)?

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 5:48 AM

      The undisturbed primordial field may be considered to be absolute zero. The disturbance level of 0 (frequency = 1) may be taken as the dividing point between physical and metaphysical. This is an arbitrary point.

      As disturbsance increases with doubling frequency (positive disturbance levels) we are going deeper into the physical domain.

      As disturbance diminishes by “halving” frequency (negative disturbance levels) we may be going deeper into the metaphysical domain.

      This is an interesting model. We shall explore its consistency as far as we can.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 8:19 AM

        Yes interesting. I do not see how mental activity will come up on the negative side of absolute zero. On the other hand, imaginary numbers already do come up on the negative coordinates of the complex plane. I do not see whether or not this corresponds to absolute zero, etc.,.

        • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM

          All disturbance is on the positive side of the undisturbed field on the disturbance scale. The frequency range 0 to 1 is metaphysical. The frequency range beyond that is physical.

        • MarkNR  On February 18, 2014 at 2:43 PM

          Negative disturbance levels, transverse waves between parallel primordial fields. I’m getting a bit lost. Maybe I’ve reached my level of complexity. Perhaps I’m trying to simplify a complex problem.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 5:46 PM

          Disturbance Level -2 (DL-2) will have a frequency of 2-2 or 1/4. It is positive frequency which is shown as a quarter of frequency at DL0.

          The frequency of 1 at DL0 is relative. I do not see anything wrong with this.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 11:15 PM

          I get it. I had the wrong idea that the neg power of 2 was putting us into the imaginary quandrant but now I see the disturbance level becoming miniscule instead. All disturbances counting backward from 0 to -100 will have a positive however small disturbance level. Zero on this scale does seem unknowable. Except for the prediction of dark energy/matter, our physics says it must, something must be there. Possibly we need to rethink “be there.”

        • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:16 AM

          Here is the graph of log on base 2:

          Ln 2

          Here the x-coordinate is always positive. This represents the DISTURBANCE. However, the y-cordinate is both positive and negative. This represents the DISTURBANCE LEVELS.

          This graph crosses the x-axis at 1. That means that DL0 has a frequency of 1. This frequency is on a relative scale. Above this frequency we are in physical territory. Below this frequency we are in metaphysical territory. At no point the disturbance is negative. Disturbance levels simply provide the harmonics in terms of the power of 2, which is positive for physical and negative for metaphysical.

          In this graph the “disturbance” never goes to 0 though it goes as close to 0 as you make it.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM

          Yes I finally got that. This is a nice tool.

        • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM

          Great!

        • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 11:19 PM

          What do we do with disturbance level of 1 where 1 raised to any power = 1?

        • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:21 AM

          You are talking about Logarithm on base 1. I am talking about logarithm on base 2.

          Logarithm on base 1 of a number will provide the same number. There are no harmonics in that representation.

        • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:41 AM

          Looks like MarkNR has misunderstoods on logarithms too.

  • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM

    Thetan (soul) is simply a postulate around which the hypothesis called Scientology has been formed. It does not provide a proper reality, IMHO, being inherently inconsistent..

    Earlier religions have been formed around the postulate of God. These are also hypotheses that I do not find it to be consistent.

    Quantum Mechanics has been formed out of mathematical reality that has increasingly lost touch with physical reality. I do not find that very consistent either.

    But there are physical and metaphysical realities, which we perceive. It is exploring the consistencies among these realities that I find very satisfying.

    I prefer scientific (mindful) approach that seeks out inconsistencies and resolves them to come up with a consistent reality.

  • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 7:43 AM

    KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics

    I shall start these postulates with what Buddha declared.

    KHTK Postulate M0: The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.

    .

    • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 7:49 AM

      I shall try this one on for size.

      KHTK Postulate M-1: Reality proceeds from visualization.

      The process of visualization needs to be explored.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On February 17, 2014 at 8:05 AM

        Agreed. There seems to be little if any difference between what our brain visualizes when experiencing the RW and the visualization our brain visualizes when stimulated in a laboratory.

      • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 7:27 PM

        Revision:

        KHTK Postulate M-1: Reality proceeds from physical and mental perceptions.

        Physical perception seems to be a built-in genetic response to the input received by physical sense organs. This physical perception is very consistent.

        In comparison, abstract mental perception is dealing with highly complex thought input and its range is much broader. Mental visualizations that mimic physical perceptions are only a small part of the total range of mental perceptions. All mental perceptions are naturally consistent as well.

        Both physical and mental perceptions can be distorted; but the mental perceptions can be more so because of their very sensitive, complex and delicate nature. One needs to practice mindfulness to keep mental perceptions consistent.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 17, 2014 at 7:35 PM

          Dichotomies are not one thing versing another thing. Dichotomies are pairs forming a single manifestation such as the dichotomy of cause-effect. From this it seems visualization-reality are a hardened pair put together with something like fusion. If we were to break them apart, what would we have?

        • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 7:46 PM

          Mental visualization that mimics physical perceptions is of a concrete variety. Mental perception goes much deeper into experience, information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc.

          Reality proceeds from both physical and mental perceptions. I am differentiating visualization from mental perceptions here.

    • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 8:04 AM

      KHTK Postulate M-2: Reality is convincing to the degree perceptions are consistent.

      Here we are looking at different shades of reality. Apparent consistency may appear to be there within a limited scope, such as, the consistency of Quantum reality, which defines a mathematical reality.

      However, a consistency within a limited scope may not be so consistent within a larger scope, such as, Quantum reality within the physical reality.

      Einstein found the probabilistic description of Quantum reality quite disconcerting. I think that it is disconcerting because it is inconsistent.

      Our reality is built up on relative certainties. These relative certainties must be consistent with each other to be convincing.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 17, 2014 at 8:08 AM

        Thus comes about every manner of law and code that Man incessantly creates to hold things still. I have looked at this quite a bit and laws seem to be put in place to supplant mindfulness. Where mindfulness is present there seems to be little need for codes except for instructional building codes etc.,.

  • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 9:01 PM


    KHTK Postulate M-2: Reality becomes illusion as perceptions get distorted and become inconsistent.

    When things don’t make sense one starts to become disillusioned. Distortions and inconsistencies have entered into one’s perceptions at both physical and mental levels.

    Input to senses does not change. Distortion and inconsistency seems to enter in at the level of the mechanism that responds to that input. That mechanism is programming at genetic and mental level.

    It is very likely that the programming code itself has become distorted and inconsistent to some degree. Mindfulness helps reset the natural and consistent code.

    .

    • vinaire  On February 17, 2014 at 9:08 PM

      Chemical imbalance may interfere with the proper functioning of the genetic programming.

      Lack of mindfulness may interfere with the natural programming at the mental level. That natural programming of the mind detects and levels inconsistencies.

    • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 12:25 AM

      . . . And a good night’s sleep.

  • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 5:34 AM

    Let me summarize it.

    (a) Reality proceeds from physical and mental perceptions.

    (b) Reality is convincing to the degree perceptions are consistent.

    (c) Reality is delusionary to the degree perception are inconsistent.

    (d) Physical realities are perceived through physical sense organs.

    (e) Metaphysical realities are perceived through the mental sense organ.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 7:30 AM

    Revision:

    KHTK Postulate M-1: When the primordial field is disturbed a condition of awareness arises.

    The undisturbed primordial field may be considered to be absolute zero. The disturbance level of 0 (frequency = 1) may be taken as the dividing point between physical and metaphysical. This is an arbitrary point.

    As disturbance increases with doubling frequency (positive disturbance levels) we are going deeper into the physical domain. As disturbance diminishes by “halving” frequency (negative disturbance levels) we may be going deeper into the metaphysical domain.

    When the primordial field is first disturbed a condition of awareness arises. The basic questions of “Where?”, “When?”, Who?” or “What?” are not yet there. It is awareness and awareness only that is aware.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 10:42 PM

    KHTK Postulate M-2: Awareness is aware of itself because that is its nature.
    .

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 10:43 PM

      Awareness is there way before self comes about.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 11:32 PM

        Yes, before. There is a kind of a gravity which gathers awareness. Plants have awareness of many things that is obvious such as gravity, moisture, sunlight. What they are aware of that is not so obvious is well, er, uh, not so obvious to me. I wonder if there exists a tangible threshold where awareness ignites into a self? (Thinking of stars gathering hydrogen and compressing until ignition is reached.) I wonder if the self runs on a fuel which is expended?

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2014 at 10:46 PM

      It is like an electromagnetic wave is there before any particle comes about.

      A particle is condensed electromagnetic wave. A self might be condensed awareness.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 11:25 PM

        A particle is condensed electromagnetic wave.

        Wave of what?

        • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:28 AM

          An electromagnetic wave is the disturbance of the primeval field. Please see KHTK postulate P2. This disturbance is what condenses to become a particle.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM

          Real squirrel cage so far. My point is that EMW seems to exist in what you previously termed unknowable. It seems to be just as unknowable now but we’re labeling it primordial field?

        • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 1:00 PM

          Yes the primordial field is unknowable overall. We may make bits and pieces of it knowable though.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 10:46 PM

          The problem with knowing it for me comes down to the question of what we are knowing it with.

          Possibly our intellect, awareness, perception, etc., can evolve to envelope more of the processes going on around us. My little dogs and cats already have evolved better awareness of the existence of EMW and sound wave in excess of what I can be aware of. Our pets might not be able to evaluate the perceptions they have as well as humans do. I have been aware for a long time that I don’t know what to think about this.

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 6:46 AM

          Maybe no evaluations are needed when mindfulness is practiced.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2014 at 11:25 PM

        v: self might be condensed awareness.

        c:This works very well for me.

  • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:31 AM

    The basic disturbance in Physics seems to have the characteristics of electromagnetic wave.

    The basic disturbance in Metahysics seems to have the characteristics of awareness.

    .

    • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:33 AM

      Therefore, THOUGHT would be a form of awareness, somewhat like “visible light” in the electromagnetic spectrum.

    • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:35 AM

      The molecular computer of DNA would be a form of condensed awareness.

  • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 5:40 AM

    I haven’t heard from 2ndxmr in a while. I hope he is doing ok.

  • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 8:23 AM


    KHTK Postulate M-2: Awareness is aware of itself because that is its nature.

    Awareness as a disturbance in metaphysical realm may be compared to electromagnetic disturbance in the physical realm. While KHTK postulates electromagnetic disturbance condensing into a particle, we may also postulates awareness condensing into a molecular computer that comprises DNA.

    We may postulate an awareness spectrum in metaphysical realm similar to the electromagnetic spectrum in physical realm. Thought is a part of the awareness spectrum just as visible light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 9:11 AM

      Awareness is aware of itself being aware as simply another level of awareness which I consider to be the basic feedback loop as described in fractal equations. This loop is occurring in mind as it does in physics.

      • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 1:02 PM

        How does it occur with electromagnetic waves in Physics?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 11:13 PM

          Well in physics, one example I think of is the feedback loop of sexual reproduction. This biology is yet physical and so it is physics. Biological reproduction is self-similar and recursive. Another physical example is astrophysics where accretion gathers together the hydrogen necessary for star ignition. The star matures and dies blowing itself apart but first incepting heavier elements, and on that goes. And yet a third everyday example is the water-cycle of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, etc., and round that goes. The constant iteration of similar yet not identical outputs of physical processes around us.

          In mind, I think that education is an example. Data comes in. It is realized in various ways. We output. The output is evaluated and that evaluation is plugged back into the mind where it iterates again. Round and round it goes. This mechanism might be the inception of the sensation of the mental “squirrel cage” that a person notices he is sometimes spinning round. This last bit just a comment not necessarily part of the example.

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 6:53 AM

          Feedback look seems to require a series of processes. Basic awareness is not a series of processes. There is no inherent feedback loop. The nature of awareness is simply to be aware.

          What appears to be a feed back loop could be due to something happening to the awareness. This is an interesting area to look at closely. Why is awareness trying to evaluate itself?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM

          Right, something is happening to the awareness. And before this something is happening period. “Basic” awareness is what? Or what is occurring?

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 8:18 AM

          For all practical purposes, basically what is happening is disturbance. Now we have to understand the nature of that disturbance.

          So, there is this primary disturbance called awareness. Look at it for what it is. At this point the awareness is looking and perceiving itself. So, looking and perceiving are two aspects of awareness. This is what we call mindfulness – perceiving what is there.

          So, in the most basic sense awareness is mindfulness. Departure from mindfulness occurs when one starts to assume and visualize what is not there. Why does that occur?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 8:41 AM

          So, in the most basic sense awareness is mindfulness.

          I am not convinced of this. I wonder whether mindfulness is more basic or more evolved. Does mindfulness represent more or less biological entropy?

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 12:18 PM

          How do you define “biological entropy”?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 11:09 PM

          Entropy is order proceeding toward disorder through the dispersion of amassed energy. Biology is able to amass energy through the gathering and storing of EMWaves. So lifeforms life cycle have stages of “reverse entropy” or gathering of energy and becoming more organized. Then when a lifeform weakens and dies, it disorganizes along the usual dispersion of entropy.

          We were discussing mindfulness and you expressed the idea that mindfulness is more basic and simple. My question is when considering the second law of thermodynamics, is this right? Is the mindful mind more or less organized. Does the mindful mind display more entropy or less entropy or no entropy or even reverse-entropy? I’m not paving a road as I have no opinion about this, I am just asking because the question seems relevant to discussing the mindful mind.

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 8:17 PM

          Well, a phenomenon settles down with respect to its surrounding conditions and that is the lowest point of entropy. But if the surrounding conditions change, the lowest point of entropy also changes. I don’t know how you say that Biology is able to amass energy through the gathering and storing of EMWaves. That is something new to me.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2014 at 9:51 PM

          I have understood this process of amassing the energy of EMWave as photosynthesis, to name one.

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 9:54 PM

          I understand photosynthesis. It is limited to plants. Are there other similar processes that made you generalize it?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM

          Animal kingdom gathers its energy from the energy gathered by plants. Are you looking at an inconsistency with my regard to my comment?

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM

          As I see animal kingdom gets its food from plants and other animals. It does not get it directly from electromagnetic waves. There is a whole lot of sequence that occurs in between. Ignoring that sequence is an inconsistency.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 2:06 PM

          I’m not ignoring it. Lets talk about complexity, additives, organization, disorganization, energy and entropy. Unless we are tossing the laws of thermodynamics?

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM

          I am currently looking at metaphysical aspects that seem to come before physical aspects. Thermodynamics belongs to physical aspects. I am not there yet.

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 8:21 PM

          I think that simplicity is more basic than complexity. Complexity comes about with additives.

          I am at a loss to understand how entropy figures into all this.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2014 at 10:00 PM

          “Complexity comes about with additives”

          Additives are energy and mass and looked upon as as reverse entropy. The mindful mind is both calm and energetic. Is this true or possible? How?

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 10:04 PM

          Somebody just sent me this article. I am currently reading it.

          https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/time_mindful.pdf

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 7:10 AM

          Before this, it seems that a tree is falling in the forest and there is no one there to hear, so no sound. Maybe awareness evaluating itself is a natural outgrowth or evolution of awareness.

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 8:24 AM

          Couldn’t the tree falling in the forest be aware of itself? What else should be there before you call it awareness?

          Do we need a selfie?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 8:44 AM

          LOL! No, not for me. All biology exhibits awareness. Would we say that a star exhibits awareness of its gravity, heat, fuel and waste? What occurs that we call that occurrence awareness?

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 12:26 PM

          I believe that there is a whole spectrum of awareness. Each and every manifestation is aware in some manner.

          This means we need to define awareness more accurately.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 11:12 PM

          This is tough yet pertinent. “Something exists, therefore it is.” I love a good tautology. I want to pay attention to this and to sort it out. Alas, I am dispersed with work and feel entropy taking over. I might be on my last legs…

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM

          I think every good definition is a tautology. That is consistent. I don’t see any inconsistency here.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2014 at 10:05 PM

          Hmmmm. I have to consider what you mean by that.

          “It is what it is” is consistent for sure. However it seems utterly incomplete. Does this make it a good model for definitions in this universe? Meaning, is this the best we can expect of a definition?

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 10:11 PM

          Just saying something is incomplete doesn’t isolate the inconsistency precisely. If all you can say is something is incomplete then you have no idea where you are supposed to look.

          If you feel uncomfortable with a definition, you need to isolate the inconsistency precisely by looking at it more closely.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 1:02 PM

          I am not understanding which inconsistency you are looking at with regard to my comments.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 1:23 PM

          I get the impression that you are looking at all tautoligies as inconsistencies. That doesn’t make sense to me.

          When one recognizes something for what it is, you are calling it a tautology and are implying that there is something wrong with that. How so?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM

          I didn’t imply that, it is a mistake to infer it. Tautologies are repetitious without fresh insight. I am looking at two things: 1. That knowingly using tautologies then raising eyebrows and saying “Well?” is inconsistent. 2. Wondering whether tautology is the highest form of basic understanding that is achievable in this universe based on clues given in : A. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty B. Goedel’s Incompleteness

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 2:34 PM

          Mindfulness is recognizing something for what it is. There is a lot more than a tautology here. There is a realization.

          Overall guiding postulate is the following:

          KHTK Postulate P0: There are no absolute certainties.

          DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

          All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.

          Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.

          There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM

          Vin: There is a realization.

          Chris: This is a slippery slope. Realizations are pleasant, but if you are not careful you might soon realize the truth of an unsubstantiated religious tenant such as Marildi’s “knowingness being senior to MEST.” We weren’t planning to go there, were we?

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 10:37 PM

          I don’t understand the point you are making. To me “be careful” is an additive. There seem to be some anxiety here. It is not part of mindfulness.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 2:12 PM

          We should acknowledge that resolving inconsistencies are relative to the frame of reference only. One can resolve an inconsistency down a dead end street, stop, and remain there in limbo “if he is not careful.” “Being careful” when doing research is not a moral or judgemental comment and a long way from an additive. Possibly I should have used words such as exact, meticulous, scrupulous, conscientious, particular, methodical, strict or rigorous so that I do not activate anyone’s moral bias.

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 3:45 PM

          Is there some inconsistency in KHTK that you are referring to. Such comments are too abstract for me. There is nothing to relate them to.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 2:18 PM

          Science is large frame of reference and inconsistencies are hard to resolve by science because of the Scientific Method that science compares the resolutions of inconsistencies to. For the meta-physicist who loves metaphysics for its supernatural leeway, science is hard to satisfy. However, I see this as a good thing with the best overall future. What you refer to as anxiety I am feeling as a tension that we hold to resolving the inconsistencies to hand without going so far out of bounds with our conjectures that we never quite get back to the inconsistencies at hand.

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM

          Besides inconsistencies, what else is there to resolve?

          If consistencies are hard to resolve then shall we give up and roll over?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM

          Not rollover, be mindful of the frame of reference. Remember the context of things.

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 10:59 PM

          This is coming across as an innuendo because no specifics are being provided. Who is not being mindful here, about what, and in what way?

          Or, is it just a personal paranoia?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM

          Vin: “There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.”

          Chris: So let’s see what we mean by progress. I do not think there is an absolute with regard to a type of progress except as that refers to a particular frame of reference (I typed reverence but changed it). There is both truth and progress as defined as consistent for every frame of reference. Being a good Scientologist is not the same as being a good Catholic nor Hindu. But there is “goodness” and “progress” defined as consistent within each of these metaphysical frames of reference which are inconsistent with regard to each other religion. – I am not particularly liking this subset of metaphysical at the moment. It is a poorly defined word that butters itself all over pretty much everything unseen plus everything conjectured. There is little or poor hypothetical involved because there is little or poor testing possible.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

          To me the measure of progress is very simple. It is the reduction of inconsistency.

          An inconsistency for one doesn’t need to be inconsistency for another. As long as a person is resolving what is inconsistent to him or her, and not forcing anything on anybody else, he is definitely making progress.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 2:39 PM

          Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorems should not be used to degrade a certainty because all certinties are relative anyway.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 3:05 PM

          I do not intend to degrade a certainty. I am pointing out where physically there may be no knowledge possible because of how we are working from within the set of knowledge outwards. There may be very little we can do about this knowledge until we have better computers, brains, minds. The way to improve seems to be continue to push this research but we need to be mindful of mental exhaustion on the various points and acknowledge this and not fall victim to taking shortcuts and accepting assumptions. We can assume so long as we know that is what we are doing and remain mindful of that. Godel and Heisenberg proved that sometimes the road ends. It seems important to me to recognize this and then go about building a better road. We should stay mindful to build that road using scientific method until or unless we give up and take up the path of religion, which is the path of assumptions.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 10:45 PM

          Which KHTK postulate are you disagreeing with?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 2:27 PM

          Which certainty do you feel was degraded?

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 4:50 PM

          I don’t know. I just see general dissatisfaction being expressed by you on how the research is progressing on this blog. You have not provided me with any specifics on what on this is bothering you.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 8:58 PM

          I am trying to describe how I distrust the anecdotal evidence of “realizations.” As a starting point they are fine.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM

          I have no idea what you are saying and why you are saying it. What was the starting point?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM

          When reaching for deeper understanding of metaphysical properties, I notice that we often arrive at a tautology. “It is what it is” routinely erupts from our lips at this point when our insight has been exhausted.

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM

          My question would be, “Is that an inconsistency to be concerned about? Or, should we keep on looking, isolating and resolving inconsistencies in the subject of metaphysics?”

          Actually, one should be looking at and resolving that inconsistency that is uppermost in their mind. This would be different for different people.

          If looking at an inconsistency is exhausted, one should simply pick up the next inconsistency on the mental stack.

          Sent from my iPad

          >

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 2:25 PM

          You seem concerned with my use of the word tautology. I do not see a tautology as inconsistent except to point out where language is being used repetitiously without any fresh illumination of the subject. This happens to us all. I am only saying that this should be noticed when it happens.

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 4:44 PM

          If there is no inconsistency associated with tautology then why should one be concerned about it?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 8:51 PM

          Because it comes from the pretense that fresh insight is being brought to bear on a subject when it is not.

          And I wonder whether tautology is innate to the basic definition of this universe.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2014 at 2:26 PM

          Then taking a cue from Godel and Heisenberg’s work, I am noticing that where we attempt to resolve problems from within the problem, we fail. This is not an anxiety, assumption or additive. This is seeing the resolution of problems for what it is rather than what it seems to be. An example of ignoring these cues or clues is the resulting myth, metaphor and religion which out of exasperation at the spiritual level and through malice and aforethought at the political level results from resolving inconsistencies using wild conjectures resulting in wilder assumptions rather than reproducible evidence. I am not trying to stop our imaginations, I only want to imagine mindfully so that we know what we are doing while we are doing it.

        • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 4:47 PM

          Please provide specific of where we have failed? What makes you think we have failed?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 7:15 AM

          What next more complicated level of awareness would then come after evaluating of oneself? Is mindfulness more highly evolved or more basic? Better organized or less organized? And what part does entropy play? Or how or why is it being reversed?

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 8:28 AM

          To me mindfulness is the most basic form of awareness. There is no self-evaluation at this level. Self-evaluation may evolve from mindfulness as the ‘frequency’ of awareness increases. ‘Self-evaluation’ in metaphysical realm may be the counterpart of ‘inertia’ in the physical realm.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM

          You have been making quite a series of apt analogies re physical vs mental.

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 12:35 PM

          It has definitely been a revelation for me to look at self-evaluation or self-absorbtion as a form of inertia. It makes sense to me. It definitely slows one down.

          Just as charge and mass are different forms of physical inertia, I am sure there are different forms of inertia in the metaphysical realm too.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 11:27 PM

          Our disturbance level scale is a good start. We need to consider and include time. Then I feel it becomes more complicated and fractal as opposed to simple linearity.

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 6:57 AM

          But time is already included in the disturbance levels. Please see

          KHTK Postulate P3: This basic electromagnetic disturbance defines the very nature of space, time, and inertia.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM

          Possibly the self could be graphed like this? (click link)

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 7:03 AM

          FRACTAL
          >>> 1975, from Fr., from L. fractus “broken,” pp. of frangere “to break” (see fraction).

          >> a figure or surface generated by successive subdivisions of a simpler polygon or polyhedron, according to some iterative process.

          > a geometrical or physical structure having an irregular or fragmented shape at all scales of measurement between a greatest and smallest scale such that certain mathematical or physical properties of the structure, as the perimeter of a curve or the flow rate in a porous medium, behave as if the dimensions of the structure (fractal dimensions) are greater than the spatial dimensions.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 7:18 AM

          In all of Nature it seems that things are built up from smaller things.

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 8:30 AM

          Or, broken down from bigger things…i.e. fractals…

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM

          Energy condenses to make small things which condense to make larger things. When energy unravels (entropy) then the process reverses. Gravity is the elasticity of the universe. What is the opposite of gravity? What is the opposite of accretion? What is levity? Is there anti-mass?

        • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 12:37 PM

          Your use of the word “entropy” is throwing me off. In what meaning are you using this word?

        • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM

          I hope I am not squirreling the standard definition. I don’t want to be unclear. “It takes energy to hold things together and to cause organization.” For me, this is an example of low entropy. A star has a lower entropy than it does when it blows itself apart. A plant blooming in Springtime has a lower entropy than it does in the Fall of the year when it has gone dormant.

          The mind needs and uses energy to be rational. One needs food and rest to establish a low entropy. Does the mindful mind require a low or high entropy to be its most mindful. Does the mind bring many things together with resulting high or low entropy? Is the mindful mind more organized or less organized? And is this resulting mindful mind more basic or more complex?

          It seems to me that the mindful mind needs a low order of entropy and a high level of organization and if so is this the “basic” or “simple” mind or a more complex mind? If you see an inconsistency with my questions and understanding, please help me clear up it up.

        • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM

          “Is the mindful mind more organized or less organized?”

          How do you know it is a mind that is being mindful? How do you define “mind” in this context?

          The language seems to be trapping you here. Go by the simplest of vocabulary in this rarefied atmosphere.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 12:59 PM

          I am using mind as awareness. Is there an inconsistency with regard to our discussion?

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

          I am restarting all the back from a primordial field and a primordial energy. There is nothing else at this point. Coming forward the disturbance appears as awareness. That is how far I have gotten. I have no idea what mind is, or how it is formed out of awareness.

          Right now there is only

          Primordial field + primordial energy = disturbance (awareness)

          In other words, awareness appears before any formation of the mind.

          .

  • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 1:56 PM


    KHTK Postulate M-3: The basic property of Awareness is mindfulness.

    Mindfulness consists of both looking and perceiving. These two may appear as different actions but in actuality they are complementary.

    .

    • vinaire  On February 19, 2014 at 2:01 PM

      Looking and perceiving may be like the electric and magnetic fields that help propagate awareness.

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM

    Ln 2

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 9:15 PM

    Revision:

    KHTK Postulate M-3: Awareness oscillates between looking and perceiving.

    Just like electromagnetic waves oscillate between electric and magnetic fields; awareness seems to oscillate between looking and perceiving. This oscillation of awareness has a finite frequency, wavelength and period.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2014 at 9:18 PM


    KHTK Postulate M-4: With increasing frequency inertia develops in the form of attention.

    This frequency doubles with disturbance levels at a much lower harmonic than the electromagnetic waves. The increasing frequency provides a direction to the awareness. This we may call attention. Attention may serve the same function with respect to awareness, as the inertia serves with respect to electromagnetic disturbance.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2014 at 11:38 PM

      I am seriously wondering if the inertia of attention needs to be “jump-started” by the antics of another disturbance in order to focus? I hope that question communicates.

      • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 8:37 AM

        Increasing frequency imparts increasing rigidity to the structure of waves. This we call inertia. This principle applies to electromagnetic waves where inertia first manifests as charge, and then later as mass.

        In case of awareness, inertia may express itself as attention, that, at first manifests as self-evaluation, and then later as the introversion into self.

        The disturbance is caused in the primordial field (Shiva in Hinduism) by primordial energy (Shakti in Hinduism). Please see KHTK Postulate P2 in the OP.

        You may also refer to ZERO, ONE, INFINITY, AND GOD

        .

      • vinaire  On February 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM

        In later stages inertia manifests itself in the form of tiredness and laziness.

        It would be interesting to look at what happens to awareness under these conditions.

  • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 7:07 AM

    The following postulate is now added to the OP.

    KHTK Postulate P2: A disturbance arises when this primordial field is disturbed by primordial energy.

    For disturbance to occur in the primordial field, a primordial energy must be postulated. These fundamental postulates have been named Shiva (the primordial field) and Shakti (the primordial energy) in the ancient scriptures of mankind. A reference was made to it in ZERO, ONE, INFINITY, AND GOD

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2014 at 1:59 PM

      Lost me. This seems circular. Postulated? When you say postulated, I don’t know if you are talking about your conjecture or about the primordial field that you are conjecturing.

    • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM

      The whole sentence that follows “KHTK Postulate P2:” describes the postulate.

    • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 2:17 PM

      In this case the postulate is

      “A disturbance arises when this primordial field is disturbed by primordial energy.”

    • vinaire  On February 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM

      I have revised this postulate as follows:

      KHTK Postulate P2: There seems to be a primordial energy that disturbs the primordial field.

      .

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

%d bloggers like this: