Towards a G.U.T. in Physics - Consciousness/Love(???) as the fundamental force of nature

[dsamson]

Towards a G.U.T. in Physics - Consciousness/Love(???) as the fundamental force of nature


I haven’t posted here in a while. It got overwhelming trying to keep up with all of the threads & then, my wife got very ill & passed due to a stroke last June. While I miss her greatly, I was very fortunate to participate in a truly loving relationship for 37 years so I consider myself very lucky.

I've been toying with an idea of late & this seemed like a good place to offer it up for discussion. Pardon the long intro but hopefully it will add context.

I will credit my late wife for the spark of the concept because of an experience she had, many years ago during a rebirthing session (a breathing practice). She had a very intense experience where she was in a room of people doing the practice & she experienced intense pressure like she had to pee but she was also in an intense state because of the breathing practice & she determined to stay with her breathing rather than seeking relief. As she persisted with her breathing, everything around her (including herself) began to dissolve & it was replaced by a perception of "white light." She experienced this energy of "white light" as the most intense sensation of pure love that she had ever encountered. After an unknown period of time, she returned to the room with the others present and resumed "normalcy."

Here is what this experience has inspired for me. I believe that she encountered existence in a very fundamental form. You could call it "an enlightenment experience." what I found most interesting was her description of the encounter as an "experience of pure love." That got me to thinking: what is love & why do any of us describe any experience as being "loving?" One good definition that I have heard is based on the notion that "being loving" as acting in certain ways to produce certain states. States where the object of the love experiences: Security, Pleasure, Honesty & Vulnerability, Trust, Intimacy & Caring, Reduced Fear of Loss & a state of knowing. At the very least, I believe that, in her heightened state of consciousness she experienced most of those things.

Now, allowing that she experienced a state of “unity of consciousness” with M@L, where her sense of being an “alter” had (temporarily) vanished, why would she interpret the experience as an experience of “loving” or “being loved?” Then it occurred to me that the term “love” is something that we apply to conditions that produce a particular state of “well-being,” as indicated in my definition above. The first thing that caught my attention was the consideration that we are applying a subjective description of an emotional state of being to describe an experience in consciousness that may be appropriately described as a physical phenomenon such as “force,” “inertia,” “mass,” “energy” or any number of other objectively measurable phenomena.

It then occurred to me that the same considerations might apply to the concept of consciousness. We use that term to describe a subjective experience which we each (presumably) experience. What if we consider that there is a field of energy that exists in “the universe,” similar to the fields of gravity, electromagnetism/weak & strong force? What if that energy field is actually more fundamental than (i.e. gives rise to) those three so-called “fundamental forces” of nature? What if this “energy” field produces the phenomena that, when filtered through a (human) body/brain gives rise to consciousness? If such a thing exists, it is probable that the (human) experience of the “consciousness” that arises in complex bodies as a result of this “energy field” would only loosely resemble the field in its “raw” or “unfiltered” form. It also seems plausible that, when a human “alter” experiences a transcendent state of consciousness, where their “connection” to this “field” becomes more direct, that they would experience it as providing (at least most of) those conditions listed above: Security, Pleasure, Honesty & Vulnerability, Trust, Intimacy & Caring, Reduced Fear of Loss & a state of knowing. Perhaps in a very basic way, “consciousness” & “love” are essentially congruent?

This has led me to propose the following:

For decades, the physics community has been seeking a viable "Grand Unified theory" that makes the connection between the various "relationships" that we have observed in the world. So far (& I admit to not being on the cutting edge of these theories) we describe the universe in terms of three fundamental forces: gravity, strong & electro-weak forces. I would like to suggest that these three forces arise out of a more fundamental "force". This "force" can be perceived but not objectively measured, hence the inability (so far) to acquire scientific data regarding this force. The perception of this "force" can be experienced emotionally as providing (among other attributes) a great sense of “love,” i.e. safety, support, connectedness & sustenance (consider that it is the force from which all other energies of the universe arise). I would also suggest that this "force" possesses characteristics that we would most closely associate with the attribute of consciousness. Bernardo uses the term M@L or "mind at large." I have sometimes referred to it as "transcendent consciousness." It would also be the source of what many people associate with "God," however, I am wary of that term because of so many other, more questionable attributes which people have associated with that term.

If such a "force" of consciousness exists, it would readily explain many phenomena which are widely experienced yet trivialized by science because of the lack of objective reproducibility. Being the "force" from which human consciousness arises, it is natural that any attempt to measure said force would be marred by subjectivity. Objectivity requires some ability to consider that "object" to have an existence outside of the observer. This is not possible with this "force" of "consciousness." It should also be considered that this "force" might share some attributes of human consciousness but would invariably far transcend the human manifestations of this "force" & therefore be very difficult to intellectually grasp.

If such a concept were to have scientific merit, it would be necessary to describe how the other three forces might arise from it & hopefully, mathematical descriptions to enable one to make predictions about behavior of the other three energy fields in connection to this field of (what would be a good term? Consciousness or Love seem inadequate & inappropriately burdened with preconceptions)

As I previously said, I have not kept up with discussions here & I may be presenting something that has already been a topic of discussion. It may also be that I am only placing my own words on the concepts already being developed by BK but I believe this concept has some merit & I hope that people will be interested in exploring this concept as I continue to do my best to refine my language surrounding it.

[Hedge90]

Firstly, let me say I'm sorry for your loss.

With regards to what you wrote, while I'm not sure how much can this be viewed in a scientific framework (since we're talking about the ontological origin of consciousness/nature, and not something that operates IN nature), the concept itself came up in me too. When I had an intense psychedelic trip, I had a strong realisation that love/light (which are the same thing) is the only thing that exists, and everything in the world of forms/representations is like the shadow of this love/light. To have a world with multiple subjects and objects, this love has to be fractured, so that its not continuous oneness but things with (ultimately illusory) boundaries between them. So everything that exists as an independent thing is really just a lack of continuity in this infinite love.
So in this framework, it fits that when you move towards less ego/self-centeredness and more openness towards others and the world itself, this fracturation starts to heal and mend, while if you move towards the other direction, you start to feel less and less connected to that light. Ultimate enlightenment / salvation would be when you entirely give up any attachment to the things / concepts that make you an individual "object", and melt back into infinity.

[dsamson]

Perhaps not so much as a scientific framework since I see no way to "measure it" which is a requirement for scientific analysis. What I want to consider;

We see multiple forms in our perception of reality. We have used the scientific method to describe the ways in which these forms manifest as objects arising from the interactions of the three "fundamental forces" as described by physics.

My wife's experience is consistent with my knowledge of other experiences of "enlightenment" where a dissolution takes place which is experienced as "love/light." I am suggesting (& I'm sure that others have similarly considered it, perhaps using different terminology) that this "love/light" is actually the way that we subjectively experience this primal "energy field" from which all of reality arises. Additionally, that energy field that we describe as source love/light is the primal form of consciousness (i.e. BK's M@L). Furthermore, the three forces of physics (gravity, EM etc) are direct manifestations of M@L

Regarding your other observations, I completely agree. The way that I have framed it is slightly different. Prior to the manifestation of "reality" the potential for the manifestation existed. At some point, that potential became self aware. Lacking reference points by which this awareness (M@L) could obtain self knowledge, the world of polarity (the fracturing you refer to) was manifested with the purpose of acquiring such self knowledge. Our purpose within this manifestation is to expand the knowledge of M@L in order to facilitate it's desire to acquire self knowledge.

As a result, all actions that occur are (obviously) permissible. However, as "alters" it is beneficial for us to act in ways that, as you say, tend towards the healing of the "fracturing." in order to facilitate our eventual reunification with source. Morality is important but it is important for human reasons, not for "divine" ones as that fracturing will eventually heal regardless of how "stupid" we might be & it seems to be that in the greater reality time is meaningless. Along these lines, I always enjoy sharing Joseph Campbell's parable of the Samurai:

https://excellentjourney.net/2014/12/19 ... urai-tale/

[AshvinP]

Perhaps not so much as a scientific framework since I see no way to "measure it" which is a requirement for scientific analysis. What I want to consider;

We see multiple forms in our perception of reality. We have used the scientific method to describe the ways in which these forms manifest as objects arising from the interactions of the three "fundamental forces" as described by physics.

My wife's experience is consistent with my knowledge of other experiences of "enlightenment" where a dissolution takes place which is experienced as "love/light." I am suggesting (& I'm sure that others have similarly considered it, perhaps using different terminology) that this "love/light" is actually the way that we subjectively experience this primal "energy field" from which all of reality arises. Additionally, that energy field that we describe as source love/light is the primal form of consciousness (i.e. BK's M@L). Furthermore, the three forces of physics (gravity, EM etc) are direct manifestations of M@L

Regarding your other observations, I completely agree. The way that I have framed it is slightly different. Prior to the manifestation of "reality" the potential for the manifestation existed. At some point, that potential became self aware. Lacking reference points by which this awareness (M@L) could obtain self knowledge, the world of polarity (the fracturing you refer to) was manifested with the purpose of acquiring such self knowledge. Our purpose within this manifestation is to expand the knowledge of M@L in order to facilitate it's desire to acquire self knowledge.

As a result, all actions that occur are (obviously) permissible. However, as "alters" it is beneficial for us to act in ways that, as you say, tend towards the healing of the "fracturing." in order to facilitate our eventual reunification with source. Morality is important but it is important for human reasons, not for "divine" ones as that fracturing will eventually heal regardless of how "stupid" we might be & it seems to be that in the greater reality time is meaningless. Along these lines, I always enjoy sharing Joseph Campbell's parable of the Samurai:

https://excellentjourney.net/2014/12/19 ... urai-tale/

Samson,

I am very sorry for your loss and your grateful perspective on it is admirable and inspiring.

I think we need to return to the fundamentals here. What idealism originally made clear was that the 3rd-person "view from nowhere" assumed by materialism-dualism cannot ever lead to solid philosophical or scientific conclusions, because it doesn't exist. It simply ignores the fact that our own conscious activity is always interwoven with the phenomenal world we are observing. The Kantian idealist tradition forgot this fact, but a consistent idealism cannot circumvent it and must account for the role of our own participation in the world content. The abstract physical forces you mention, along with their ideal counterparts like "field of consciousness", "pure awareness", etc. cannot be forces existing apart from our own conscious activity. It is within our own activity where any rigorous investigation of the world content, scientific or otherwise, must take its start. Otherwise we are simply projecting our own desired conclusions into whatever "fundamental" substrate we abstractly speculate to give rise to everything else. There is no possible way to judge whether concepts of "matter/energy", "consciousness", "will", "idea", etc. are more fundamental in this way.

So what is the conscious activity we are most familiar with and can directly observe in our experience, without dissociating into the non-existent "view from nowhere"? That is our thinking activity. It is the only activity where the phenomenal appearances and the noumenal 'thing-in-itself' are unified. This equivalence is known because it is our activity which produces the phenomena. For all other perceptions we can ask, "what is the meaning of this object? why do I perceive this object? what stands behind this perception?" For our thought-forms, these questions are answered by the very nature of thinking. I know what they mean because it is my idea projected into the thought-forms. I know why I perceive them because I will the thought-forms into existence. I know that it is my own ideating activity which stands behind the thought-forms. So, with that intersection, we can explore the living transformations of conscious phenomena and reason our way to more and more fundamental considerations.

I will leave it there for now. It's really important that this point about our thinking activity is understood. I am happy to answer any questions about what was written or provide clarifications.

[Ben Iscatus]

Dsamson - thank you for your post, and I hope you are coping as well as you can with your profound loss.

A couple of thoughts to add fuel to yours:

Love is an attractive force, and thus akin to its sensory-limited cognates gravity and subatomic bonding. Love released (freely given) seems akin to energy (light). But we can't go too far down that road, or gamma rays would become death by love.

In analytic idealism, we are dissociated from MAL, so when the dissociation ends, it seems natural that we would expect to feel the attractive force of re-association as Love.

[tjssailor]

Profound experience of Love.

Along with the meditative experience of Love and the psychedelic experience of Love just about every NDE mentions the primacy of Love. We're all familiar with the millions of words generated in an attempt to understand existence. It's endless and wearying. To know through experience that we are Love maybe is enough.

[tjssailor]

Dsamson - thank you for your post, and I hope you are coping as well as you can with your profound loss.

A couple of thoughts to add fuel to yours:

Love is an attractive force, and thus akin to its sensory-limited cognates gravity and subatomic bonding. Love released (freely given) seems akin to energy (light). But we can't go too far down that road, or gamma rays would become death by love.

In analytic idealism, we are dissociated from MAL, so when the dissociation ends, it seems natural that we would expect to feel the attractive force of re-association as Love.

Yes, and I imagine your wife's experience and others perhaps bought more comfort, no matter how small, than a million words of philosophy.

Of course the Light we're talking about here has nothing to do with electro-magnetics.

[Hedge90]

Love released (freely given) seems akin to energy (light). But we can't go too far down that road, or gamma rays would become death by love.

Well there's that thing about it not being possible to look into the face of God, because one would die instantly...

[dsamson]

I ran across Frank Vissers "critique" of BK from 2019 & I think my response to him has some utility in this discussion, here is an excerpt:

There IS a more fundamental energy field than the three fundamental forces of gravity, EM/weak & strong. All of reality arises from perturbations in this, most fundamental, energy field. While, as a matter of nature, it expresses in every aspect of the “material” universe, when this “most fundamental” energy field expresses through sufficiently complex structures (such as the advanced brains found in humans and some other life forms) we perceive the expression of that energy field as consciousness.

Cosmic idealism isn’t claiming that there is no (objective) reality. It is claiming that reality – FOR US! Is inherently subjective & that, at its most fundamental, the energy field from which reality arises (something that is a fundamental tenet of physics!) is encountered by our minds as being something like what we think of when we think of consciousness.

==========================================================================
Now, several commenters here have suggested that speaking in such terms is meaningless because it is all consciousness & therefore any discussion of a material reality is inherently subjective. I would offer three suggestions to these commenters:

There is an objective reality even if it is not possible for any of us to perceive it with any accuracy. I exist. I think it likely that (at least most of you exist as consciousness that appears to be "not me."

The laws of physics do offer a useful model for prediction of the behavior of "objects" in our reality even if they are not permanently unchanging in the cosmic reality. Describing cosmic idealism in terms of the understood laws of physics may be useful even if it is unprovable & as yet provides no vehicle for objective testability (perhaps because it is ultimately impossible to be objective when ultimately, there is only one object - and we're in it!) [i.e. subject-object is meaningless when subject=object]

The model of consciousness as a fundamental force of nature/physics could be a useful bridging concept to communicate cosmic idealism to those who struggle with idealism.