Heavenly Baseball

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Jun 3, 2015 at 04:54

Hi, Waz

I got about 2/3 through the Tom Campbell video. He was easy to follow, as long as he confined himself to what he called "fundamental" theory. For example, he said that a "string theory" that requires 14 dimensions to work cannot be "fundamental". Those 14 dimensions are 14 restraints too many.

If I might introduce my own metaphor, think of a theory as someone driving a car down a street. The driver wants to get from point A to point B. He's a drunken driver, though, who can't keep the car going straight; so he has 14 helpers who push the car back on course every time he veers too far to the side. Those 14 helpers help him to keep a reasonably straight course; but they don't guarantee that, having started at point A, he will end up exactly at point B. With 144 helpers, all lined up along the way, he will get closer to hitting B; but not necessarily exactly.

String theorists are trying to correct for inconsistencies in our currently-used theories, such as relativity and quantum mechanics: Relativity gives pretty good results in its regime, and QM gives pretty good results in its; but there isn't a single theory that works in both regimes. The String theorists are trying to come up with a theory that does this; and they believe they're getting close by adding dimensions. That, in essence, is what I believe Campbell is saying when he says string theory is not "fundamental". LIkewise, the "many universes" theory is flawed, because it requires too many constraints in order to approximately work... and even then, it can never quite hit the mark.

Campbell seems to think he has hit the mark, or come close, with only two constraints: (1) what he calls "consciousness" and (2) evolution (in its most general sense). By doing this, he became very easy to understand; because he removed the fog of complexity generated by other theories. He then proceeded, though, to define consciousness in terms of fractals; and you know that fractals are just never-ending, increasingly complex concepts -- fundamentally similar to ever-multiplying "multiple universes", or string theories with an ever-increasing number of dimensions.

If Campbell had simply called "consciousness" "God", he would have done well; and even a child could then understand him. There is then only one constraint that matters, namely, God; making the "theory" of this God the ultimate in "fundamental".

All in all, I enjoyed your link.

I have been musing lately, on the description of the "New Jerusalem" in the Book of Revelation. This place, into which believers of the NT hope to make their eternal abode, is described as being 1500 miles long, 1500 miles wide and 1500 miles high! Some have envisioned this as a cube and some as a pyramid; but one observer noted that an object that size (somewhat smaller than earth's moon, and a little larger than the ex-planet Pluto) would collapse into a sphere.

The "angels" in that city are described as having the same dimentsions as humans; and we read elsewhere in the Bible that beings from that realm can come and go to earth with apparent ease. If they came from a planet or "city" with the gravity of the moon, they wouldn't have the strength to stand on earth; so perhaps this "New Jerusalem" is to be made of rather dense matter, enough to generate earth-like gravity. On the other hand, since the old heaven and old earth (together, comprising our known "universe") will have "passed away", this New Jerusalem will (did? doess? It exists outside of our present time-space) is outside of "physical" reality and all the laws of "physics" -- be they QM, relitavistic, stringy or whatever.

The whole exercise is mind-boggling. I imagine the "Big Bang" going backwards in time (quite possible, in the realm of "consciousness", as Campbell puts it, or "God" as I prefer), getting smaller and smaller until it gets the size of a baseball; then God catches it in his mitt. Imagine! Celestial baseball!

Shalom shalom :-)

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".