Physics Of The Non-Physical

[johnpetrovic]

My new book “Physics of the Non-Physical” is now available on Amazon:

For those scientists and people with scientific background knowledge, I believe you may find that the science which you think you know has very significant gaps in what it actually knows.  The two overarching paradigms of modern science, the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics, are not able to account adequately for what we observe in our so-called physical realm, from the expanse of the universe to the point singularity of a black hole.  The most glaring deficiency in our present science is the complete lack of understanding of consciousness, an attribute that every person knows they have at their most fundamental level.  Consciousness is a reality that exists in the non-physical and science must come to terms with it.  Only then can science proceed to the next stage of describing the true nature of reality.d

 

Each book section is headed by an appropriate quotation from a famous physicist.  In the first half of the book, I outline the various aspects and assumptions that underlie the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.  I think you may be surprised at what really forms the basis for each of these theories.  I highlight a number of key issues in physics that have not yet been satisfactorily addressed.  In the second half of the book, I direct your attention to phenomena that are presently considered to be non-physical by science.  The non-physical phenomena that I discuss are well-documented and are clearly part of our reality.  Science neglects or dismisses the existence of these “inconvenient truths” because they cannot be explained by current scientific paradigms, but for science to progress in a meaningful way they must be addressed.   Finally, I suggest that consciousness is the overarching fundamental quantity that underlies both the physical and the non-physical.  Everything derives from a field of Universal Consciousness that resides in the non-physical realm and which contains the physical realm as a subset.

 

 

Please also see my website for other books that I have written:

Edited December 31, 2018 by GAHD
Pay for adspace please

[exchemist]

Oh good, just what we need. A piece of spam, plugging a book by a another crank who makes the category error of treating consciousness as an entity.  

[johnpetrovic]

If you read "Physics of the Non-Physical", you may have a different opinion.

[exchemist]

If you read "Physics of the Non-Physical", you may have a different opinion.

If and when it gets a good review from a reputable source I'll consider it.  

[hazelm]

Oh good, just what we need. A piece of spam, plugging a book by a another crank who makes the category error of treating consciousness as an entity.  

Well, not exactly a separate entity. 

 

"a thing with distinct and independent existence.

"church and empire were fused in a single entity"?

 

Perhaps more like "body and soul", "brain and mind".  Fused together in a single entity.   I don't know if that is the basis of this book but it's how I see consciousness.  Curiosity makes me want a look at the book.  Forgive me if I am supporting "spam".  I don't want to turn this "advertisement" into a discussion of what consciousness is.  It is just a topic that gets my attention.  And I can't defend a book I have not read. 

 

Ah!  Wait and see? 

[exchemist]

 

Well, not exactly a separate entity. 

 

"a thing with distinct and independent existence.

"church and empire were fused in a single entity"?

 

Perhaps more like "body and soul", "brain and mind".  Fused together in a single entity.   I don't know if that is the basis of this book but it's how I see consciousness.  Curiosity makes me want a look at the book.  Forgive me if I am supporting "spam".  I don't want to turn this "advertisement" into a discussion of what consciousness is.  It is just a topic that gets my attention.  And I can't defend a book I have not read. 

 

Ah!  Wait and see? 

 

I still think that's a category mistake. Consciousness is an activity of the brain, not a thing. 

[hazelm]

I still think that's a category mistake. Consciousness is an activity of the brain, not a thing. 

Just as W R Klemm says in Mental Biology except that he calls it Mind.  And it makes perfectly good sense to me.  All I was indicating (or trying to indicate) is that Brain and Mind/Consciousness are not two separate entities.  They merge.  As to which is using the other as a tool is still open to debate in my Brain/Mind. 

 

So, are you saying an "entity" indicates a "thing" and therefore Consciousness should not be called an entity because it isn't a "thing"?  I confess that I am not seeing the distinction.  Maybe I do not understand how you define "thing".   A little wisdom on that topic, please?  Perhaps you are saying that an entity has to be something physical?  But, neither "church" nor "empire" are "things".  That would make the above definition that I found wrong.

 

I should maybe surrender?

[Maine farmer]

Just as W R Klemm says in Mental Biology except that he calls it Mind.  And it makes perfectly good sense to me.  All I was indicating (or trying to indicate) is that Brain and Mind/Consciousness are not two separate entities.  They merge.  As to which is using the other as a tool is still open to debate in my Brain/Mind. 

 

So, are you saying an "entity" indicates a "thing" and therefore Consciousness should not be called an entity because it isn't a "thing"?  I confess that I am not seeing the distinction.  Maybe I do not understand how you define "thing".   A little wisdom on that topic, please?  Perhaps you are saying that an entity has to be something physical?  But, neither "church" nor "empire" are "things".  That would make the above definition that I found wrong.

 

I should maybe surrender?

Try using the analogy of a computer.  Think of the computer and software as the brain.  When the computer is off, it's much like a non - living brain.  When you turn on the computer and start using it, that activity  could be considered to be something akin to consciousness.

[hazelm]

Try using the analogy of a computer.  Think of the computer and software as the brain.  When the computer is off, it's much like a non - living brain.  When you turn on the computer and start using it, that activity  could be considered to be something akin to consciousness.

In a way, yes.  But I'd say it is more a sleeping brain than a non-living brain.  Like with our sleeping brains, getting its crossed wires straightened out and cleaned up.  Then, turned on, its output is its Mind/Consciousness. 

 

I am sure Dr. Petrovic would protest my calling Consciousness "Mind".  That is unless he says more on the topic in his book.  But any number of people have equating the two.  If "consciousness" is awareness,  the mind needs awareness to function. 

 

But I wander again.  Your "non-living" computer is a thing. Its "living" output is it consciousness and consciousness is not a thing but an "activity". 

 

All right.  If I have that, I have what Exchemist is saying.  An activity is not a thing which we suspect, from his brief review, Dr. Petrovic is making of it.   It's a matter of semantics.  My only response is back to the quoted definition of an entity. 

 

Well, it's a living language. 

[Maine farmer]

In a way, yes.  But I'd say it is more a sleeping brain than a non-living brain.  Like with our sleeping brains, getting its crossed wires straightened out and cleaned up.  Then, turned on, its output is its Mind/Consciousness. 

 

 

Remember that even a sleeping brain is active, and certain functions, such as keeping the heart beating and the lungs breathing require some activity in the brain, but not necessarily consciousness.  I think of a computer that is turned on, but not being used to be similar to a brain in sleep, although a brain is far more complex and may be dreaming in sleep.  I often wonder what happens to my consciousness when I have been in a deep but dreamless sleep, as when I wake up after 5 hours of sleep feeling like I have only just gone to bed.

[Moronium]

Oh good, just what we need. A piece of spam, plugging a book by a another crank who makes the category error of treating consciousness as an entity.  

 

The arrogant, contemptuous dismissal, based upon a misapprehension of what's even being said to begin with, of a post seems to be a recurring theme with you, eh?

[hazelm]

Remember that even a sleeping brain is active, and certain functions, such as keeping the heart beating and the lungs breathing require some activity in the brain, but not necessarily consciousness.  I think of a computer that is turned on, but not being used to be similar to a brain in sleep, although a brain is far more complex and may be dreaming in sleep.  I often wonder what happens to my consciousness when I have been in a deep but dreamless sleep, as when I wake up after 5 hours of sleep feeling like I have only just gone to bed.

But a computer that is turned off is not "non-living" if it can reset its clock twice a year and reset its calendar in several ways:  daily, monthly, and annually even though it is turned off.  Its consciousness has to be at work. just as our brain is at work while we sleep.  No?  Although there are times when I think my brain is non-living.  But "I think; therefore ....."  <G> 

[Moronium]

This whole topic goes back millenium, to Plato, and before.

 

In the "modern era," Descartes kicks off the discussion of the mind/body relationship, when he claims that mind and body are two distinct types of "substances" (mind and body).  By substance, he does NOT mean a physical object.  He's means more or less what the OP is saying here:

 

Consciousness is a reality that exists in the non-physical

 

 

He says it is "real" and yet that it is "non-physical."

 

Descartes' "mind/body dualism" is a topic of ongoing philosophical discussion.  The big question for Descartes was how it was possible for these two distinct substances to interact.  Monists claim there is no duality.  Solipsists say that only mind exists.   Physicalists say that only body exists, i.e., that everything is physical.  Though not a settled issue, most agree with some form of the "dualist" position, which wiki describes as:

 

Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical...

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

Edited May 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Playing football is an activity, therefore it is a category error to even try to speak of the game of football, right?

 

I don't think so.  Homey don't play dat.

 

For some damn reason, most languages make a distinction between verbs and nouns.  God only knows why.  Often the very same word can be used as either a verb or a noun.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Whatever else your books says, John, I certainly agree with this assertion of yours:

 

...much of our present science is based upon aspects that are more aptly characterized as metaphysical, or non-physical, in nature.

 

 

But don't even try telling that to a lot of the posters here.

[hazelm]

This whole topic goes back millenium, to Plato, and before.

 

In the "modern era," Descartes kicks off the discussion of the mind/body relationship, when he claims that mind and body are two distinct types of "substances" (mind and body).  By substance, he does NOT mean a physical object.  He's means more or less what the OP is saying here:

 

 

He says it is "real" and yet that it is "non-physical."

 

Descartes' "mind/body dualism" is a topic of ongoing philosophical discussion.  The big question for Descartes was how it was possible for these two distinct substances to interact.  Monists claim there is no duality.  Solipsists say that only mind exists.   Physicalists say that only body exists, i.e., that everything is physical.  Though not a settled issue, most agree with some form of the "dualist" position, which wiki describes as:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

The things that become philosophical debates never cease to amaze me.  What is real?  Pain is real but it is non-physical.  Only its cause is physical.

 

Getting that off my mind, I don't  think the OP author is being philosophical.  I think he is trying to show that consciousness is not a philosophical debate but a scientific fact. Not in his case at least.  Big difference.  I think he is wrong when he says science (read that scientists) avoid discussing consciousness.  Some do just as some avoid talking about religion.  But I have several very good books about consciousness and they were written by scientists.

 

And what else do I think?  I think I should stop saying what John Petrovic means and let him say it?  Maybe I am totally misreading him.  :-)

[Moronium]

John, I note from your C.V. that:

 

Dr. John Joseph Petrovic is a scientist who retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a Laboratory Fellow in 2005 after thirty-three years of scientific research in many areas of materials science.  He has published two hundred scientific papers and holds ten U.S. patents.

 

 

Those are fairly impressive credentials, but that won't stop every high-school drop-out on this site from telling you they know 10 times as much about science (and the philosophy of science) as you do, know what I'm sayin?