Reciprocal System #73-Beyond Space and Time YY [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone welcome to my channel I'm Thomas I do educational videos today uh we are doing the 73rd video on the reciprocal system of theory which is a Theory of Everything derived by Dewey B Larson back in the 20th century up until his death in 1990 we are actually looking at one of uh his posthumous book that came out in 1995 called beyond space and time that his uh his attempt to move into metaphysics religion philosophy psychology uh whereas his all of his earlier work was on more of the harder harder Sciences astronomy physics and chemistry with a couple of books on economics thrown in there but uh it all just demonstrates how Larson's uh is a system of theory or our Theory of Everything it is basically it's a way to think about any subject and if you can kind of Master the system or become fluent in the system then you can apply it to any subject you want uh and I think that's the uh most important thing about the theory is that it it levels the playing field you do not any longer have to rely on a pointy-headed Ivory Tower uh white lab coat wearing expert to tell you what you should think about this or that you have the tools yourself if you can become fluent in the reciprocal system you have the tools yourself to understand these things and to um you know make determinations about these things it's a difficult system to to understand there's no doubt about that you're not going to figure it out from watching One video from me but uh if you put this the same kind of effort into learning the reciprocal system as you did uh in your high school chemistry class or you know any one of your high school classes you know uh basically you put in an hour a day for um for a half a year or whatever you will be begin to start understanding the reciprocal system and it will pay back big dividends okay now the the general idea of the system is that uh unlike the Greeks uh Larson uh really uh decided that uh or derived or induced and deduced that the universe is not made out of atoms it's not made out of matter and the universe is not made out of energy uh unlike what Einstein might tell you uh but the universe is actually made out of motion uh we can look at M E equals m c squared and energy equals matter times the speed of light squared uh the fact that energy and matter can be converted one to the other in and of itself is enough to show that neither one of them can be the most fundamental thing in the universe because there has to be something that underlies both of them and that is motion that's what Larson says the universe is made out of motion and motion is the relationship between space and time in fact in his earliest books Larson actually referred to motion as space-time but then he decided to uh change it to um to motion he also in his later works he uh he actually just called it change change in three dimensions and uh you know that's the next part of his theory uh his first postulate is that uh the universe is made out of motion motion is the relationship between space and time space and time are three-dimensional they're both uh the same he calls them reciprocals of each other and so whatever quality space has time also has that quality and whatever quality time has space also has that quality so the what we know about space is that it's three-dimensional or I say four three or four dimensional but either way it's uh you know multi-dimensional using XYZ coordinates we'll say and therefore time also is three-dimensional and uh he calls that coordinate time just like coordinate space and then um what we know about time what we see clearly about time or not we don't see it but we sense that time is always progressing it's flowing it's always getting later and later and later uh and in the same way space is Flowing it's always getting further and further and further apart and this has been observed by the Hubble telescope that's showing that all of the all of the distant galaxies are moving away from each other now that's what you call a scalar motion and the flow of time is also a scalar motion a motion that has no particular direction but it has a magnitude and again you can understand scale you can visualize scalar motion by taking a balloon and putting a bunch of dots on it with a magic marker and then blowing up the balloon all of the dots are moving away from each other but in a scalar manner in no particular direction the further away they are the faster they're moving away from each other now that's really just a kind of a two-dimensional analogy of a three-dimensional thing a three-dimensional analogy of that would be more like taking a uh a loaf of raisin bread or something and then putting it in the oven and as it as it um expands all of the raisins are moving away from each other because if you do the balloon analogy you're just talking about the surface of the balloon but uh you know with the raisin bread analogy the raisins even in the interior of the balloon are also moving away from each other so uh anyway so that's where he started from and he um then basically this the next part is that uh space and time are both in discrete units there's a minimum unit of space and a minimum unit of time um and one unit of space in one unit of time is the speed of light uh the speed of light uh where Einstein says it's the maximum speed of the universe Larson says that the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe it's the neutral point and there's a an entire half of the universe that's actually moving faster than the speed of light which he calls the cosmic sector or sector two the material sector or sector 1 is the part we're familiar with that is um uh that is moving slower than the speed of light and uh that part of the Universe um progresses um based on aggregation so they the particles just kind of glom onto each other um and uh up until it gets to its most complex level I that using you know the laws of chemistry um and um bonding and so on and until it gets to DNA which is the most complex level and a DNA molecule has billions of atoms in it and at that point it becomes eligible to uh fall under the control of a sector 2 unit and the sector two units then um when combined with the sector one unit it becomes what Larson calls a life unit now remember sector two is slower sector one is slower than the speed of light sector two is faster than the speed of light over here we have uh space-time relationships three-dimensional space progressing time over here we have time space relationships we have three dimensional time coordinate time and progressing space which Larson calls clock space just like over here we have clock time so here we have coordinate space and clock time over here we have coordinate time and clock space when they combine they turn into a life unit and then when the life unit evolves to its most complex level it uh becomes eligible to be controlled overall by what he calls a sector 3 unit and the sector three is the unit that is entirely beyond space and time I would submit that that is really what the realm of light is because at the speed of light all of the Lorenz uh relativistic equations fade away and time doesn't exist anymore um and so uh but Larson doesn't doesn't say that but he doesn't really say what sector three is but basically sector three uh for Larson is just his word for God or the spiritual world and when a human becomes uh the ethical human that's its most that's life unit's most complex level when it gets to its most complex level then it can be taken control of by a sector three component and sector three is geared towards uh ethical Behavior whereas the sector 2 control unit is geared toward survival and so there are certain situations where those two are working at Cross purposes uh where your ethical Behavior Uh undercuts your survival uh behavior and at that point the human human being has to be able to decide which of those two approaches to take so uh that's kind of where we are at here in chapter 18 of this book uh beyond space and time which is the chapter is called right and wrong and um he's talking about how uh intuitive information is our source um or at least our transmission mechanism toward um getting uh Communications from sector three that give us uh you know um allow us to discern the difference between right and wrong and he says we can establish the nature and general characteristics of the portion of this system that constitutes the moral code by means of those items of intuitive information that can be directly verified and once this basic pattern has been established we can test other items claiming uh claimed to have been received through metaphysical channels that is sector 3 or beyond space and time by determining whether they fit into the established pattern a broad General principle of great significance is the one that we know as the Golden Rule most of the great religions expressed this principle in essentially the same terms and those that do not state it explicitly give us a number of separate rules and precepts from which a general rule of this kind can be inferred here is a rule that meets all of the tests that we have been able to formulate it is included in all of those religious Revelations that we have reason to believe are the most authoritative all of the different versions are essentially in agreement and none of the negative items against which we are on guard is applicable furthermore the rule is an admission against interest as self-interest would not ask for equality of treatment between self and others it would ask for preferential treatment the very few objections to the golden rule that can be found in philosophical literature um are generally of such a frivolous nature that it is questionable whether their authors are actually serious um foreign and he cites Thomas Huxley using a frivolous argument such as that he uh describes the moral code is the code of sector three by which the actions of ethical men are governed uh if anyone puts himself in the place of the robber as Huxley suggests he is not for the time being at least an ethical man he has chosen to follow the code of the animal and neither his actions nor his desires have any relevance to the moral code or to the status of the golden rule as part of that code um now I'm not sure that I get this part of the argument because when he's talking about the Golden Rule um and he's kind of eliminating these other people uh he's doing so on the basis that it doesn't have any sector 3 applications but I would think that the golden rule is um something that helps you distinguish between sector three and sector two do unto others as you would have them do unto you and uh you know so you know Huxley is putting himself in the place of the robber in his example where Huxley says um he points out if I put myself in the place of the man who has robbed me I find that I am possessed by an exceeding desire not to be fined or imprisoned so I guess he's arguing against you know laws because he's putting himself in the place of the man who's robbed and Larson is saying that there is no sector 3 um ethical relevance to this uh because uh he's he's in uh ineligible for this because he's a robber in the first place well for me I would just say you know I would think that the Golden Rule I mean he's really kind of saying that uh and he gets to this later on is that the Golden Rule uh is a piece of intuitive information from sector three um and that uh one demonstration of that is that it's Universal that you know he's and he ultimately says that really anything any kind of simple um ethical intuitive uh information that is kind of like Universal is it that's a demonstration of it being correct because he says that intuitive information uh can be definitely incorrect but it's not due to the fact that the information is correct is incorrect it's due to our ability to translate it uh correctly and we're not able if we if we don't have a certain amount of uh kind of practice and preparation we're not able to actually uh translate at least more complicated messages from sector three uh it like simple intuitive information is easy but uh I I just don't see that especially in a society that we live in right now it's kind of like uh the the things that like if if something is some if there's something that everybody believes in where it's you almost unanimous for me that's almost evidence that it's wrong almost on its face you know if if everybody believes in something that that almost shows you that it's wrong um but also the Golden Rule I just don't see it as having Universal application because again in our society I mean look at a sadomasochist you know uh a Sato masochist wants to be dominated they want to be uh brutalized they want to be whipped and you know or whatever and so they're just like oh well I'm gonna go whip you because that's what I want you know I I'm following the Golden Rule I'm doing what you what I want to be done to me or you know a less maybe crass example would be just somebody with a food addiction with you know some I love chocolate cake and so I'm gonna shove it down your throat because I I want somebody to shove it down my throat and you're like well I'm on a diet I don't want to eat any chocolate cake and they're like no you know I that's what I want so you know I think he he comes up with a way of um of kind of sidestepping that but it doesn't work for me so he says um the Golden Rule uh consider healthy competition okay uh Henry margino produces an equally absurd application of the rule consider healthy competition for worthwhile ends which most people will regard as ethically desirable the Golden Rule does not permit it for if I want to get ahead of my competitor I must let him get ahead of me and he says no ethical man would take this attitude Larson says no ethical man would take this attitude if he entered into a competition he would want to win if possible but he certainly would not want to his competitor to turn the whole activity into a farce by letting him win consequently he is under no obligation to let the competitor win uh the Golden Rule makes no such demand the mere fact that nothing more to the point can be okay so he's he's saying that this example is absurd and that's if that's the best you can do uh then the the Golden Rule stands and you know to me that's kind of a straw man argument again um and Larson should have noticed that he was using straw man arguments and uh being kind of uh protective of his Golden Rule here where he the only kind of uh the only kind of objection he has to these points that are being made are that they are absurd um and you know he might classify my sadomasochism example as absurd too uh but it's it's real I mean and I've I've I've uh had that affect me before where somebody you know who who really wants to they want to do themselves harm so they think that they want me they want to do me harm too uh because I have a different uh set of wants and desires do unto others as you would have them do unto you uh well I would not have them uh you know do unto me what you want to have you do unto you and so when we have you know different uh preferences like that um the Golden Rule uh turns out to be Fool's Gold to me um but anyway we are uh we didn't cover very much today but we uh at least I got uh that objection to Larson's uh approach here I don't reject his his uh intuitive approach here but I do object to um the kind of the unanimity aspect of it um okay we will get back to this next time and have a great day we'll see you soon