1. Right, the aether is what connects the immaterial to the material. There is no 'nothing', it just isn't expressed into physical form which in the default state of rest. Different explanation of the same concept. But you're still not explaining how waves propagate without a medium. Waves are immaterial, they are actions, not things.
RTH: It's known by many names in many traditions including prana, mana, ruach, qi, ki, scalar waves, etc. but the Greeks called it "the Etheric". That was pointing at subtle, ultra low frequency magnetic fields that are the signature of the plasma spirit body. We know this because of the 1998 study on LSD, Von Reichenbach's reports of "magnet light" likely induced by ergot, and the fact that ergot traces were found in a drinking vessel and a human jawbone at Mas Castellar de Pontos, a satellite location for the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. That's why the Greeks knew about the coiled serpent as depicted on the Orphic Egg. It's the same as the Kundalini Shakti serpent from Hindu and Naga teachings.
That said, I think that plasma is the best candidate there is for "the ether", as the magnetic signature of a plasma body would then be described as an "Etheric" phenomenon.
2. Ratios and pressure mediation have exactly nothing to do with math. They precede it.
Disagreed. Thoughtforms precede physical reality. Math does not require physical reality to exist in order to be valid. Also, ratios are literally math. The set of rational numbers is that. The universe's coding language is math. I'm a mathematician and I've taught math and critical thinking to students who won awards in increasing quantities and qualities each year. I'm sorry, but I'm NEVER yielding this and you're going to always struggle to find anyone to agree with that. Ratios are a mathematical concept. End of story. Math wins on that one. Pressure differentials are all just math too. Force divided by area is a mathematical thing. Differentials are deltas, subtraction problems, at their simpler form and, in their more advanced form, something one is likely to study after completing calculus. All math. Not having it. Physics is downstream of math. Math is one of the highest purity fields there is.
3. (no comment from you)
RTH: I take it you're not familiar with Dewey Larson. He's mentioned in the Law of One and I've seen Shilo from DemystifySci talk about Larson before as being worth reading too which are two huge confirmations that Larson is signal. Probably worth your time. The Law of One is a honey pot. It has yielded me some very important information.
4. You don't need to be up to date on the latest science because the framework is fundamentally flawed. It's a waste of time.
RTH: I agree in large part but ultimately can't fully endorse this because of two main reasons. 1. I haven't done that due diligence myself yet which means I'm doing the "trust" thing not the "verify" thing. 2. It is definitionally prejudicial to dismiss something I haven't checked out yet, and not being prejudicially dismissive is a really good baseline level for adherence to the Golden Rule.
That said, if I did do my due diligence and got caught up on the latest science, my expectation is that it would be a huge waste of, in particular, my time, as my time is probably best spent pursuing the research that I am. It doesn't make sense to have a Wall Street guy doing brain surgery or rocket science. Specialists should stick to their wheelhouse and expand as needed. I just don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lessons from both Christ and the Zen tradition point at this. One prime example is Mas Castellar de Pontos. That was a relatively recent discovery. Muraresku wrote the book during the teens last decade and the smoking gun archaeobotanical discovery happened in 2000. That's pretty recent. Obviously science is making advancements with better technologies, etc. so we can't just throw modern science completely out the window. They're getting some practical results that are improving our lives.
5. The concession here means you're agreeing with my premise while still being in opposition to it at the same time.
RTH:
Saying you have a "fair point" doesn't mean you're right or that I'm saying that's right. I'm saying it's a viable explanation that shouldn't be taken off of the table.
6/7. If we don't understand the mechanism of why the RHR works, then you can't use it to assert your understanding of reality just because you don't care why it works.
RTH: I think you're staring at the hand rather than what the fingers on the hand are pointing to. And yeah, I don't care why the RHR works and it doesn't matter for what I'm doing in my research. Perhaps it matters to you in yours. Knowing that it works is more than good enough for what I'm trying to do. My goals are to provide 8+ billion people with a picture of the universe they can understand. They can see that the RHR is a thing and they can understand it is why electromagnets work. From there, I can go to the atomic level and point out that electrons orbiting atomic nuclei are producing a magnetic signature waveform as oscillators, and because of the unique structure of the atoms in every thing, every thing has a unique magnetic interference pattern it emits. This allows me to explain things like astrology's legitimacy as impactful upon the human subtle body/aura. These are important concepts for people to understand. For most people, understanding why the RHR works doesn't matter. You are a 1%er in that regard, and that's ok, but not caring why doesn't make my model of reality necessarily wrong. It just means that understanding is not useful to me given my goals of rugpulling human beings motivations to engage in religious violence.
8. Waters specific geometry is what makes it unique, its atomic structure is secondary to this fact. You're reversing the hierarchy of nature here, for the chemical composition is secondary to the structure.
RTH: You're operating with information from within the box. I like what Godel said, i.e. you cannot fully verify, describe, or prove the validity of any complex logical system from within that same system. You need an outside the system perspective.
I recommend the Law of One as that outside the system perspective. Perhaps outside the system should be clarified. It is an outside "our portion of the system" perspective in the same way that your perspective is outside of the fish tank's perspective. You have a wider, more diverse perspective than the fish do. Likewise, ascended masters aka angels, elohim, interdimensional aliens, lowercase g gods and goddesses, etc. are all the same thing and they have an even wider, more diverse perspective on reality than we are capable of having while we are in this lower "density" (again, mathematical density, not physical).
Trust me, there's signal there, especially for scientists. Bear in mind a physics professor with interests in paranormal, mystical, etc. was the questioner. Study it and treat the study as if it were a direct proof in math where your hypothesis is "Suppose for the sake of consideration/thought experiment that the Law of One material is good faith information and true. What logical dominos topple over?" Even if it doesn't wind up changing your mind, I would be very interested in your takeaways from studying it. I think there's low hanging fruit to be had. It's only 40 years old roughly, and as Muraresku said at the end of chapter 6 "Sometimes the evidence has to just sit there, waiting twenty years for somebody to notice." For the Dead Sea Scrolls, they sat for over 1900 years before somebody noticed.
9. Counterspace is what Bentov called protospace. It's the ground state, the state of pure inertia, the state of rest, the default medium.
RTH: Yeah, I remembered that earlier actually. You're right. He did talk about a sort of proto-matter and I remember thinking to myself that that was his way of saying ether without saying ether like how anthroposophy was a way of saying Rosicrucianism without saying Rosicrucianism or voluntarist is a way of saying anarchist without saying anarchist.
10. If you're teaching Fibonacci and you think leaves spiral because its optimal for photosynthesis I respectfully think you have it backwards. This would suggest that nature tried every other ratio before finally settling on the one that works. Not only leaves, but everything that is natural, would have to work through an evolutionary process in order to find the right one. It's illogical. It all follows the same ratio because it has to.
RTH: Frankly, I don't understand how your final sentence contradicts anything that came before it. Not all leaves grow that way on all plants though so it's not just the way it has to because clearly there are counterexamples. What we're seeing in the plants that do is the result of natures entrepreneurial, evolutionary process. The stuff that doesn't grow like that evolved differently, which is kind of the point. The goal is to produce novelty. Omniscience is boring for the Creator. This whole limited, finite perspective and being thing we have going on is way more interesting. We're basically God's version of America's Funniest Home Videos crossed with the Darwin Awards lmao.
11. Nothing is alive without water, fact. Provide a better thesis if you disagree.
RTH: On Earth. I refer you to Godel and the Law of One again.
12. 'Mystical crap' was in reference to the video, not anything you said.
RTH: I'm glad you clarified that because that was probably initially perceived as a shot fired lol.
---
It took me a bit to orient myself to the discussion and I probably spoke too soon. This is adjacent to my research but not my primary focus so my thoughts aren't as well organized as they could be on this subject simply because I consider it to be of minor import in relation to my stated goals and the path I see to accomplishing them. I think plasma is the ether and is Bentov's protomatter. I have had the thought before but I failed to find it in my mind when we first started talking.
I agree Bentov pulled from lots of ancient thinkers. He was based. Satoshi did that too. He assembled lots of parts and pieces so I would put Bentov on Satoshi's level in that regard. Frankly, their respective impacts on the world might be on the same level too just because of Bentov'e physio-kundalini model and his contributions to remote viewing research.
The pantheism is valid, everything is conscious idea comes from math. It's just set theory. God is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all merciful, and omnipresent, amongst other divine traits. The only thing that fits all of those characteristics is the Universe itself, but the whole Universe, not just the physical plane we occupy. The One Infinite Consciousness creates perturbations in the plasma, disturbances from neutrality, in an infinite variety of ways creating an interference pattern of thoughtform waves that we call electromagnetic radiation or light, both visible and invisible to us. That interference pattern may be sliced into strata, or 'bandwidths of interactivity". These are like the densities.
As for things like rocks being conscious, I mean, dismiss it as woo woo if you like but I've literally worked with rocks before, projecting visual thoughtforms to them to instruct them on what I want them to do for me. For example, I've had ant problems every spring I've lived in my home. I've lived here for over a decade. Over the winter, I started working with stones for their esoteric properties. Per my studies, ants are attracted to a vibrational quality that one novel field of study has labeled "vertical negative green". This is a detrimental vibrational quality found in all sorts of cancers, poisons, etc. No bueno. I set up a number of different pieces of indigo gabbro aka mystical merlinite, including a sphere, roughly a dozen palm stones, and a dozen obelisks at strategic locations throughout my house, giving each piece or team of pieces specific instructions to absorb and transmute all detrimental, negatively polarized energies, entities, and thoughtforms into a neutral, centering vibration. No ants this year. The ancient Egyptians knew about this as evident in the cones they used to store their sugar. That cone shape muted the vertical negative green and kept the ants away from their sugar stores. Also, I've tested this using pendula but that's usually controversial. Thing is I've had probably half a dozen people other than myself use the pendula and they get the same results. Dominant hand matters in using this method so ambidextrous people can be difficult to work with but strong lefties or righties have had no trouble using them and getting consistent results.
Note, I have done a blind trial with these in testing pyramids. I didn't expect to test positive for the vertical negative green but it did...6 times. That's a 1/729 chance of being a fluke. I got the opposite of my expectations 6 times...twice each on each of 3 separate pyramids, 2 of the same exact shape and size, another smaller, but similar (mathematically similar) shape. Then I learned why they were emitting that, took steps with my dremel to modify the shapes slightly, and now they don't put that vertical negative green out anymore.
So, how do I know rocks are conscious? Because the ones I instructed over the winter to work on my behalf are doing phenomenal work as evidenced by the anomalous lack of an ant invasion this year and reports from Egyptian anti-ant sugar storage tactics.
Basically my framework proposes that the Law of One is one of the least distorted sources of revelation available to humanity today. It aligns with basically every tradition including science and language, offers insights from outside the box, so to speak, and has proven to contain low hanging fruit that can resolve mysteries of life, the universe, and everything. My framework is essentially an organic perennialist philosophy.
I have multiple big Kruse fans who like what I'm cooking. Kruse's stuff on light plays really nicely with the Law of One material. Light is kind of a big deal and I think your shared thoughts thus far have betrayed that you agree on the import of light.
Your definitions look pretty reasonable to me. Again, it seems that your area of focus is not exactly the same as mine although we do have a lot of overlap and agreement.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm genuinely curious as to what takeaways you would get from studying the Law of One and Dewey Larson. While it is certainly not all I have been studying for the last 3 years, that's how long I've been studying it and it has yielded me my baptism breakthrough. I had to have other puzzle pieces to fill in gaps but they were there when I looked for them.
Basically, I'm at the point where I either have the greatest case of confirmation bias imaginable (and as a mathematician who taught math and critical thinking at national award winning levels, I would like to think that I'm rigorous in my clarity of thought to avoid such a disaster) or I've been untying the Gordian Knot...solving the massive system of equations...I'm onto something. I'm either batshit or I'm onto something.
I think we actually agree on a lot after having gone through all of this and I don't think that me being onto something with my research is exclusive of you being onto something with yours. In fact, I would say it's likely we both are and that we could mutually benefit. Like I said, I would be genuinely interested to remain in contact as you study through the Law of One to offer you some initial primer information as it would be useful for you in penetrating the somewhat odd vocabulary that it contains. I think you would probably find validation of the ideas you've found valuable in your research.
