The Grand Patchwork

When it came to the existance of irrational numbers like pi or e or the square root of 2, Pythagoras ignored them and pretended they did not exist because it went against his theory that God was Number. How could God also be random and eternal as well as patterned like sacred geometry? Einstein also agreed when he said that God doesn't play dice with the universe. I am happy to say that this dilemma has been resolved through the understanding of the Mandelbrot set and its relationship to pi.

The Mandelbrot set is the ultimate pattern ever discovered with numbers, and happens to be the equation that the Grand Patchwork revolves around. The Mandelbrot set is the ultimate example of Pythagoras' understanding of rational numbers and infinate pattern. The patterns produced by Z=z^2 +c appear to be infinite, however, if numbers plugged into the equation (iteration) are over 2, then they will be outside the Mandelbrot set. Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGMRB4O922I" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Numberphile's excellent expanation.

Then please watch how https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vY0CKYhPY" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">pi fits into the equation. (if links do not work search Numberphile and Mandelbrot set and Numberphile pi and the mandelbrot set on youtube).

From watching these videos it is possible to resolve Pythagoras' dilemma regarding irrational numbers. Here we can see that the irrational number of pi lies OUTSIDE the Mandelbrot set and is therefore not included in the Grand Pattern (God's Plan, not God itself as God is an open or infinate set). According to the Grand Patchwork, the Mandelbrot set represents, contains and explains the visible universe. The set is complete in itself and might be called a closed set. Everything that lies outside is not part of the Grand Design or plan. There are some 'flase prophets' such as the Juliet set, but this set is finite and not as infinate as the Mandelbrot set. Where Pythagoras was concerned, one could argue that what is included in the Mandelbrot set is divine, sacred geometry, and irrational numbers are not included in the divine pattern.

On an interesting side note, upon leaving the visible world in death or near death experiences (or in a DMT trip) this is what one experiences leaving the body (crazy beautiful patterns). The fractal tunnel is your soul leaving the body. It is not navigatable consciously.

The Grand Patchwork cosmology understands and utilizes both scientific/quantum physics and Religious/Spiritual understandings of the creation of the universe.

God/Creationist

As a panpsychist, I believe that consciousness is the permeating wave/particle. This being said, it is possible to accommodate both religious and scientific explanations. The consciousness before matter was physical or materialized could have been that of God (or whatever name you wish to insert here). Wheather it was a unified single entity or a collective is not quite explained, but it could have been a unified God that divided itself into many parts as to have entities to care for, play with and love. Similar to a Brahman- Atman idea, God could have been a unified entitiy and different parts or characteristics become manifest on Earth, to return to the collective upon death. God thus gets to be an individual and a collective simultaneously because life and death are contant.

Science/QM

As consciousness grows the frequencies or vibrations become stronger and/or louder to the point where sound created light or big bang. This follows "and God said let there be light." Sound frequencies or waves burst asunder to particles that became manifest, then the LAWs of Nature took hold. Sound preceeds light.

The manifestation of consciousness

I took a class in transpersonal psychology (Harry T. Hunt) that discussed levels of consciousness, criteria for consciousness and the various alternate states of consciousness. Amoeba have been see to show spontaneous emergent conscious behaviour (Washburn) and if single celled organisms can show spontaneous conscious tendencies, then so can brain cells. Neurons are akin to protozoa and communicate with one another, perhaps in a field-like consciousness. So there is a level of consciousness in which neurons communicate and react etc. The collective consciousness of the neurons produces an emergent field at the level of the human that experiences. This individual human consciousness is irreducible back down to individual neurons. The human utilizes the collective neuronal consciousness in his or her own way- a way different than the level of consciousness the neurons use. Each body organ even has its own aura or energy field (Sheldrake), in which the human experiences as a collective. Anyway, if neurons have their own level or experience of communication and consciousness, this provides a mechanism for telepathy or even intuition. Perhaps the neurons of one mind can communicate inter-personally to another mind using their own level or field of consciousness. This would be the mechanism between people in proximity. Since there are many humans on the planet, perhaps there is an emergent collective consciousness (similar to Jung) that creates a new level of consciousness irreducible back to individual humans. This collective consciousness provides the field or medium in which thoughts or communication can happen simultaneously across the globe (like quantum entanglement idea but for consciousness, rather than light).

I realize the title is not quite right because as a panpsychist, consciousness was, is and will always be. Therefore there is no actual manifestation of consciousness itself. There are, however, levels built upon levels as consistent with emergent theories of consciousness. As organisms move from simple to complex, new emergent fields upon fields manifest.

Field or not to Field?

The Higgs field supposedly creates mass of a particle. Alternative understandings of the interaction between mass and the quantum vacuum in the centre show that since, E=mc^2, there is no need for a field in the first place because if energy is mass and mass, energy they are one in the same and thus a field is not necessary in the explanation. Higgs suggests that there is a field that creates the mass. Sheldrake suggests there is a field (like Plato's forms) that influences the SHAPE of an organism, not necessarily the mass.

The Grand Patchwork explanation tackles the problem by suggesting that the interaction between the mass and the quantum vacuum of a particle is like the interaction between the world of pure energy and the physical world. Let's take the Big Bang example and suppose there was a moment that the physical world became manifest. Quantum Physics thus tries to find the original state of the universe and what it was comprise of. The Grand Patchwork would say this endeavour would be impossible. There may be an initial cause, but since then, everything has changed to an interaction or a correlation in which causation can no longer be determined. The whole is now irreducible to the parts. The sum of the parts do not equal the whole (Gestalt Theory). General Systems theory would agree that reductionism is impossible or only possible in a theoretical closed system model where there is absolutely no communication between the various parts of the system.

The interaction between the world of pure energy and our physical world does and can create a field, but the field is not necessary when at the mechanism level. The Grand Patchwork calls this mechanism the Grand Transducer (GT), which could be a particle that transduces consciousness or energy from the world of pure energy into matter. Since, E=mc^2, then there is a direct exchange or interaction at the seed or mechanism level. There is a field that is produced between the interaction of the two creating a 4th element (world of pure energy = 1, physical world aspect = 2 , mediator or Grand Transducer = 3, field = 4). However, since the field and the Grand Transducer at the centre of the permeating particle(s) are reversible, they act as one and appear to be inseparable. Field is not needed for the interaction at the mechanism level, because the Grand Transducer IS the field, or takes the place of the field and vice versa. So the particle is not necessary on the field level. Since the field (wave aspect) and the GT (particle aspect) are one in the same, this can explain the new findings of the double slit experiment.

New findings of the double slit experiment support the Grand Patchwork's understanding of the interaction between waves and particles. This is because there is no actual place where a particle becomes a wave and vise versa exactly because they are the same thing. The big bang or initial cause did not need a field because it all happened on a particle level. However, since then there has been a conversation or an interaction between all the parts and the initial cause creating the field. The field is the wave function of the interaction between the initial cause and its parts. This explanation validates Quantum Entanglement. The field allows for simultaneous communication between the initial cause and the parts.

Another way to unite science and religon is through Quantum Physics regarding the quantum redshift theory that "claims the universe appears to be a series of concentric hollow spheres made up of denser conglomerations of galaxies," with our galaxy at the centre (Personal communication K Sudds, May 18, 20017). The Grand Patchwork agrees with the concentric sphere idea, but these are dimensions instead of galaxies per se. So in the smallest, most dense circle or "bubble" is our universe and our galaxy is in the centre of that. This makes sense because our realm or dimension is the most dense. According to the Grand Patchwork, this is because the other dimensions surrounding it create this density. Our realm can be seen to be the most dense because even though there is mostly space between the particles, we can walk on the ground, stand on chairs build houses etc. If our realm wasn't this dense these things would not be possible. This density applies to our bodies, but not our mind or emotional/spiritual adventures.

Uniting this with Religion and Spirituality, our minds and hearts can transcend the innermost bubble and reach other realms and dimensions. Kabbalah refers to a middle point within our bodies that is much like the concentric sphere idea. Depending how you see it or understand it, this middle point and our various characteristics could be either the microcosm or macrocosm of the nesting realms of the universe. This middle point represents the central column of one who is balanced in body, mind and emotion/spirit. When all of these realms (nefesh, rouah and neshimah) within the body are aligned, transcendance from our physical realm (Malchut) is possible. There are six other realms that make up Zer Ampin that represent a journey through the next realms that reside around our physical realm. There is a firmament dividing each realm or "bubble." Three more realms around these make up the Crown or Keter. Surrounding all of these realms is Ein Sof or the Infinite.

Uniting this back to Quantum Mechanics, this explanation supports the idea of both expansion and contraction. However, the word contraction is not understood as a big crunch as Hawking would suggest. According to the Grand Patchwork, the terms are more like separation/division expansion and collective reunification. Therefore a Grand Patchwork definition of contraction would look less like a Big Crunch and more like a unification of all realms or dimensions. In order to unify one must travel through all dimensions and gain a good understanding of each and how they fit together. When all dimensions are working together like all the aspect of within the human (body mind and emotion/spirit) then we will see a reversal or retreat to the original source (like what Rosh Hashana is supposed to be about). Therefore, the original source might be a Perfect Form or concept or LAW rather than a pea-sized particle.

Side Note Regarding the Number Line and the Axiom of Choice

There is one other suggestion regarding the problems inherent within the number line that I did not get to as I am not sure it fits nicely here, but I have a potential solution to another quandary regarding the number line. When manipulating the number line, one is faced with a conundrum that begs the question “what is the line itself made of?” “How are all the numbers tied together?” No matter how deep you go, there is still a space between each number, no matter how miniscule. I suggest that the glue binding the numbers together on the number line are the number actions, such as +, -, x, /, =, <,>, % , $ etc. The symbols tie the numbers together by guiding or providing direction of how the numbers are to be used. A lot of the time we look at something without considering the actor. This is a problem inherent within Psychology as mentioned above, we seem to forget that we are an acting part of the equation; a variable forever confounded that can never be controlled for properly. This is why I am a firm believer in the axiom of choice.

Adding the axiom of choice creates a world of problems for mathematics because “[t]he method of proof that mathematicians have decided to use requires that results be obtainable by a finite number of steps” (Aczel, 2000, p. 176, italics in original). I am unconvinced that the best way to deal with an infinite number line is to place arbitrary limits onto it. This is why it was so hard to plot the Divided Line, the mathematics depended on how long the Line is because the axioms of mathematics are set up to necessitate limits and turn something infinite into something finite for analysis. (Much like using fixed Earth mathematics to launch rockets out of our atmosphere). A common critique of adding the axiom of choice is there is no guideline telling us where to go and what to do, making it randomized and arbitrary. However, I suggest that using hypotheses as one goes through mathematical procedures can help provide guidelines of where to go and what application to apply.

Another critique of the axiom of choice is that it is assumed if it were applied; the sequential order of the numbers would be ignored.

Consequently, there is no theoretical way to look at these numbers without

considering this property of order, i.e., it makes no sense to try to jumble up

the numbers and consider them as a unordered set. (Aczel, 2000, p. 177)

If, we apply the suggestion above to consider the number line as a spiral, rather than a linear line, this may help solve this conundrum. This does not involve jumbling the numbers out of order, it just involves placing them in an order where they can be seen as a set, or on an equal plane, rather than as individual numbers placed in a hierarchy.

I was having a super interesting discussion with scholars on ___________ site and came up with a compresensive model for the interaction and relationship between force, inertia and entropy.Theories that only consider the former 2 variables are not considering the full equaiton.

Force --> inertia <-- entropy.

or perhaps

Force --> inertia --> transducer <-- entropy

This is why thermodynamics is problematized when considering biotic bodies as opposed to abiotic bodies, the forces within this model loose their measurable equality. 

I have come to the conclusion that large corporations are given human rights, while humans are made commodities. Need I say more?

I thought I would just come out clean about the mysteries of the universe. Plesse also see the last blog post about how gravity is a field, yet much more.

The Higg's boson's movement resembles that of a transducer. A transducer converts one type of energy (usually chemical or accoustic) into a different format (digital/electrical). This is how the Higg's boson works and behaves,  it acts, not only as a mediator between the corporeal/temporal realm and the realm of pure energy, but also transduces or acts as a translator between the different languages so they can be understood by one another. The tower of babel parable is an example of when this transducer malfunctions.

Therefore, something is amplified so the signal can be enhansed, or reach the same level as the other. Our next level of consciousness or our next level of Malchut (world) can be comprehended and reached when all our senses are focused together on a common goal (see the psychology section). If this common goal is for the sake of sharing, then this goal is most likely to be reached.   

Gravity is a field, a big sticky field that surrounds us. Gravity is the medium in which we float. It's the solution!

The surface resistance is experienced because of repulsion from a curved surface. "For Einstein ths continuous physical acceleration is caused by resistance against a surface" (http://www.krauselabs.net/writings/unifying-general-relativity-and-the-standard-model/).

This surface is nothing other than the firmament that divides our physical world (Malchut) from the next level or dimension (Zer Ampin). This phenomenon can also be referred to as the mirror. This is the surface we spiritually bump against are our doubts ---> fears, which we mistake as something real (the opponent). This opponent is just our own self defeating thoughts and believes.  I would recommend unlearning these beliefs because this is how death occurs. Through entropy due to energy loss from bumping up against the firmament, we can tend towards death.

Gravity is therefore nothing more than death. BOOM!!!! Take that Quantum Physics!

In order to create light there needs to be resistance, but when we start to forget how to create light, or extract the light from difficult or challenging situations, entropy sets in. So, the more we bump off the surface and don't extract or produce light from the exchange, we tend towards entropy, evenessence and eventually -death. 

"Very simply," he said to laughter and applause. "Normal computers work, either there's power going through a wire, or not. It's 1, or a 0, they're binary systems. What quantum states allow for is much more complex information to be encoded into a single bit." https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/justin-trudeau-gave-sarcastic-reporter-203118473.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Justin Trudeau

How binaristic! I would recommend overcoming binaries and growing exponentially. I have a beef with this concept of binaries of 1's and 0's (which is serious because I'm a vegetarian). In my personal opinion, one stole the energy from zero. In our conventional mathematics, we understand zero as having no power; it represents nothing. Whereas 1 is where you start and the number one has all the power. In a few short words, it's number 1. Better look out for number 1! The reason I have a 'beef' is because zero represents the circle, which represents an open circuit. Which therefore really does have the power and is connected to the power source.  The number 1 represents the off switch, which is disconnected from the power source. Look at any electronic device and the on/off switch is a circle with a line throught it. The circle is zero and the line is 1 is the off switch. However, despite of this evidence, we  consistently revere the number 1 over the number 0. Which do YOU connect with???

How's that for binaristic thinking!   If you are open, you can be open to the experience of whatever you become open to. This is what it means to be an open circuit. One is closed, and they are usually looking out only for number 1. Instead, join zero-point energy!