Reciprocal System #74-Beyond Space and Time ZZ [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone out there um welcome to my channel I'm Thomas and I do educational videos today is video number 74 on the reciprocal system of theory uh and uh that is a theory of everything that was derived uh discovered by Dewey B Larson uh an American engineer back in the 20th century from about 1930 where he made his first discoveries up until his death in 1990 and he wrote many books on uh this first books were on physics and astrophysics chemistry astronomy wrote a couple books on economics we're looking at his final book which was his uh his attempt to get into metaphysics so a religion philosophy uh uh psychology a little bit of biology and um this book came out after he died in 1995 and uh it was a little controversial among his followers of which there were very few followers I mean very few people know about this Theory but I think it's very important it's a theory of everything and it also is an empowering theory that gives you once you understand the theory once you become fluent in it it gives you the ability to figure this stuff out for yourself you don't have to rely on a guy in a white lab coat to tell you or somebody you know uh that works for NASA to tell you uh some kind of how everything works you know you don't have to trust the science you are the science once you um you know internalize the reciprocal system the basic gist of it is that uh the universe is not made out of matter and the universe is not made out of energy but the universe is made out of motion motion is the relationship between space and time space and time being the same other than that they are reciprocals of each other that's basically a ratio or relate a relationship a ratio or fraction uh time over space or space over time but they both are in three dimensions uh so they have uh I would say three or four dimensions but regardless uh they are that's what we know about space it's three-dimensional XYZ coordinates you can use tetrahedral coordinates for four dimensions um but then by the reciprocal relationship time also has those same qualities and time we know of as being flowing it's always getting later and later and later time is progressing so in the same way space is also progressing because of that reciprocal relationship uh and that has been detected by the Hubble telescope uh in the recession of the distant galaxies all the distant galaxies are moving away from each other and again another way to Envision that is by using a balloon putting a bunch of dots on the balloon with a magic marker blowing up the balloon all the dots are moving away from each other each one of those dots is kind of like a Galaxy at the edge of the universe now if you wanted to turn that into a more three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional um representation you would use something like raisin bread all the raisins are moving away from each other as the bread Rises now um the other part of the theory is the discrete unit postulate that being that both time and space have a minimum unit okay they're not like continuous they're quantized there's a minimum unit of time there's a minimum unit of space less than that doesn't exist and one unit of time one unit of space in one unit of time is the speed of light the speed of light uh according to Einstein is the maximum speed of the universe but according to Larson the speed of light according to the reciprocal system the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe or the neutral point of the universe and there's an entire half of the universe that's moving faster than the speed of light that Larson calls the sector 2 or the cosmic sector and then there's the half that we're familiar with that's moving slower than the speed of light Larson calls that the material sector sector one sector one builds up by aggregation particles you know glom onto each other uh bond with each other until they get to their um most complicated or complex form which is DNA which a DNA molecule has billions of atoms and at that level of complexity the DNA molecule becomes eligible to be taken control uh over by the sector 2 entity the or the yeah the sector two The Meta uh the um Cosmic entity and the sector 2 entity will take control and that is what Larson calls the life unit the life unit is a combination of a material body and then a Cosmic mind and so that is and that's mined in the very most broadest sense uh you know some kind of uh consciousness um because even an amoeba or you know single-celled organism has a certain level of intelligence that it goes beyond you know what is going on in the material sector which is you know strictly just following the uh laws of chemistry and uh so once that life unit develops and becomes more and more complex it eventually gets to its most complex level which is the intelligent human being at that point the intelligent human being can be taken over by a sector 3 entity and sector three is an entity that is beyond space and time independent of space and time other Traditions would have called it God or the spiritual world and um so at that point the overall life unit which is controlled by sector 2 sector two is intent upon survival but the sector 3 unit is intent upon good behavior or ethical behavior and so that puts the human being kind of in the middle uh where they're having uh in some cases opposing drives one is driven towards survival the other is driven toward ethical behavior that that point the human being has to decide which to follow and that has to do with free will which is uh the previous chapter that we just got done finishing um chapter 17 we are now in chapter 18 of his book beyond space and time which is on right and wrong and we were just discussing the Golden Rule he says now sector three communicates with us um in various ways ESP intuition scientific Insight religious Revelation they're all Communications from sector three uh and they're all correct but whether we're able to interpret them correctly is a different matter and it depends on our level of re of um Clarity and our level of preparation and most of the simple messages that we get from sector three uh we can interpret but but like scientific Insight uh and in some cases religious Revelation are more complex messages and they require a certain amount of preparation to be able to kind of understand the language that uh the messages come in and um now he's talking about the Golden Rule as a kind of a universally intuited message like everybody understands that um you know do unto others and I was taking him to task a little bit on that because I don't see it as a universal rule I see it more like a golden um guideline it's usually correct uh but it there are very many cases where it is not correct and I brought up the case of a sadomasochist you know a sadomascus wants to be whipped they want to be uh brutalized they want to be tortured uh and so if they want that then they're going to it by the Golden Rule they would do that to somebody else and that's not what you want so there are exceptions to the Golden Rule that's the only point I was making uh I'm not saying that the golden rule is all wrong but I'm just saying that there are some exceptions and so that there is not necessarily universality to it that Larson is kind of claiming so we're going to start with him right here we may thus conclude that the Golden Rule constitutes a part of the set of principles that govern sector three the code of ethical man okay so now he's he's working in this idea of a code an ethical code you know which uh there are the communications that you're getting from sector three are kind of like slivers of that code or sections of that code are parts of that code you but but you have to put it all together as a um tapestry or um you know an amalgamation here we have the nucleus of the new rules of the game the nucleus of the new rules of the game that supersede the rules of sector two the laws of nature followed by the biological world when we transition to ethical uh when the transition to ethical man takes place from this point on then we have another test that can be applied to purported Revelations or intuitions concerning these rules a more specific test than anything previously available as any proposed addition to the known rules must be compatible with the rule that we have already verified the first question to be asked when any such addition is suggested will be is this consistent with the golden rule um you know I would question that for the same reasons that I was questioning it before but for example Kant proposes that what he calls the categorical imperative in which the Criterion by which we identify a moral action is a decision as to whether we would be willing to make this type of action a universal rule it is clear that this Criterion is in harmony with the golden rule throughout the area covered by the latter indeed it has been called the philosophical Golden Rule and it also passes the other tests that we have defined providing that we specify Collective judgment rather than individual judgment and require substantially complete agreement on each separate issue before attempting this item as a part of the code just as we should do where we are dealing with religious Revelations uh in applying this Criterion we are in effect taking the stand that those items which ethical men agree should be part of the moral code are in fact part of that code on first consideration this may seem to be totally unscientific uh and so now he gets into a little bit of talking about what is scientific and what isn't um I would maintain in fact that what we are apt to describe as what we think about moral questions concerns contains a considerable amount that we do not think but know and that this forms the standard by reference to which the truth of any moral theory has to be tested instead of having itself to be tested by it reference to any Theory I think he's quoting w d roster and um it does not follow that the moral code is subjective such Concepts as that of William James who asserts that nothing can be good or right except so far as some Consciousness feels it to be good or thinks it to be right or completely at odds with our scientific findings man's intuitive apprehension of right and wrong is not a subjective conclusion of its own it is knowledge of an objective fact that is transmitted to him by the intuition process many of those who deny the reality of metaphysical existence um are reluctant to concede the existence of intuition largely because their apprehension uh that such a concession might open the door to a metaphysical explanation and uh you know philosophers don't want to go there so um but what difference is there between saying that the moral code is inherent in the conscience of man and saying that it is recognized intuitively there is no General agreement as to just what conscience is uh and so then he's gonna go into the uh literature review of that he talks about what Freud thought conscience was Herbert Dingle and um here we go one of the big stumbling blocks that stands in the way of a clear uh understanding of the basic principles of morality is a widespread impression that if a moral law is valid at all it must be absolute or as Kant expressed it categorical this conceptual error leads to confusion in both directions so maybe Larson's talking to me here uh because I'm looking at looking for a universal thing he's saying that the golden rule is a nucleus but maybe that that doesn't mean that it's always you know he's maybe saying that agreeing with me that it's more of a guideline it leads I don't know let's see it leads those who do not think things through in a comprehensive way to adopt dogmatic points of view and insist on the application of certain laws or Commandments under conditions where the consequences are definitely harmful on the other hand it leads many of those who recognize the undesirable consequences of this rigid dogmatism to take an equally extreme Viewpoint and deny the existence of fixed moral laws the finding of this work is that the moral law laws are indeed fixed and unchanging these laws are the governing principles of sector three and they have the same permanent status as the governing principles of the other two sectors of our universe no one contends for example that gravitation is merely a transient phenomenon which will sooner or later be superseded by some other type of behavior of matter um that's questionable but we'll keep going nor is it seriously suggested uh Larson tends to like to use this seriously suggested or you know a lot of times he'll dismiss things because he calls them absurd um where you know when you when you're trying to do something Universal where you're trying to have the theory of everything it's got to Encompass the Absurd so uh I I dispute what he's talking about here as well but he here he's saying nor is it seriously suggested that some other Factor May ultimately replace survival as the controlling element in the biological evolutionary process the laws of sector 3 are no less constant however the situations to which these laws apply are generally of a complex nature and their practical application is therefore subject to a number of different considerations it is often claimed that the moral laws are inherently different in character from the physical laws in as much as the latter are essentially statements as to what will happen under specified conditions whereas the moral laws are statements of what ought to be done no such distinction needs to be drawn human beings have the option of following the laws and principles of sector 3 rather than those of sector two you know the uh killer be killed rules of the biological realm if they elect to do so the moral laws are statements as to what will happen under specified conditions just as it is true of the physical laws if they choose not to follow the code of sector 3 then the biological laws specify what will happen uh the analogy with physical laws illustrates clearly what is wrong with the contentions of Kant and others who insist that at least some of the moral law uh law laws of are of such a nature that they must be followed without regard to conditions or Consequences uh his categorical imperative is restricted by no condition as absolutely though practically necessary it can be called a command in the strict sense but this is not at all true of physical laws for example the law of heat transfer states that heat will flow from a body at a higher temperature to one of a lower temperature but in the familiar uh desert water bag the water is kept cool by heat transfer against the temperature gradient the explanation is of course that heat is actually being transferred from the air to the water in accordance with the heat transfer law which is in full effect but under the existing conditions another physical law that governing evaporation is also effective so he's saying that one law will can't can cancel out another and it makes it look like the laws are relative even though they are absolute but there are other laws that intervene so um many of those who realize at strict adherence to all of the physical rules of morality is Impractical conclude that it is essential to allow some exceptions to the moral laws uh and now he's talking about uh John Stewart Mill um rules of conduct cannot be so framed as to require no exceptions and uh another person who uh regards the need for exceptions as self-evident uh when this there's a conflict between two moral laws we must admit an exception but he said Larson says uh what all those who share this point of view fail to recognize is that the result of a conflict between two moral laws like that of a conflict between two physical laws is quantitative whether an action is right or wrong depends on the net balance of the right and wrong aspects of the different moral elements that enter into the action as a whole just as whether physical object will gain or lose heat depends on the net result of the different physical laws that apply under the existing circumstances okay so uh he's qualifying things uh by saying that they're you know these laws are Universal but they have except they appear to have exceptions because other times there are situations where other laws intervene other universal laws okay so we'll leave it there and we'll return to this tomorrow have a great day we'll see you later