1. 1 Shelf Two of “My cosmological pantry” Two welcome messages – how my Awareness model comes together Welcome number one from the eminent cosmologist Laurence Krauss “We are all star children. Every atom in our bodies was once inside the fiery core of a star that exploded billions of years before our solar system was formed. At the same time, each of us is connected to all other life on this planet in ways we rarely imagine. Simple estimates suggest that each time we take a breath, we could be inhaling atoms exhaled by most other human beings who ever lived. We are not only connected to the stars, but to the full breadth of human history”. Welcome number two My science world is a world of blobs. It began with a special blob of awareness I have entitled “Pavlov – NOW”. This blob struggled to create something of which it could be aware. A single thought emanated from the awareness phenomenon of Pavlov. As a result of this thought, it cloned itself. These clones cloned themselves too, until such time as there was an unlimited number of other blobs each one of which was aware of the other. They communicated with each other via primordial time. Over time the blobs, and subsequent patterns of blobs became limitless. Primordial time itself is awareness, so each blob itself is imaginary, just as is primordial time itself. What once was merely imaginary phenomena became virtual (almost real). We jump in and out of being virtual as well. By nature we are blobs too. As individual blobs we are part and parcel of the same process. I believe we remain distant clones of Pavlov – NOW. The welcome messages from both Laurence Krauss and me are similar. Laurence speaks from a relative 3D perspective. I speak from an imaginary timeless primordial reality perspective. I think you will find my slide debate about both phenomena will be entertaining.

2. 2 My Awareness model is seated in a describable, information intake environment (phenomena that is both describable and the information that renders it this way is always available to be vigorously found if vigorously searched for. My Awareness model is both highly unconventional as well as being deeply abstract. By nature it also brings forward phenomena that are very abstract as well. It also brings forward symbolically expression data. (Data with a history of some kind like with a story of its own to tell, not necessarily of the here and now). In order to structure the process I have created similarly abstract tools to help make better sense of phenomena of reality overall. I have embodied the ideas of Jeroen B. J. Van Dijk’s Process Information model in order to assist me to assemble my Awareness model of physics. I quote below the information sheet I have prepared to better inform readers of this similarly abstract method of extracting and explaining information. I believe it to be sufficiently self-descriptive. Quote: “Awareness model information with analysis and interpretation The Awareness data interpretation and measurement process is closely linked to Jeroen B.J. van Dijk’s Process-Information model which is commonly used in physics when scientists are seeking information about the micro-states of phenomena rather than its obvious macro-state. In other words the system focuses upon what something (phenomena) is inwardly doing rather than what it is, i.e. doing something (its particular action). Jeroen B.J. van Dijk says: “…our higher-order conscious experience follows from nature’s rudimentary co-informativeness – as a highly evolved confluent culmination of its mutually sensitive psychophysical activity patterns. And in so far as the mind-brain can be identified as the leading process-structure in facilitating this higher-order consciousness, it may be considered a self-experiential end o-sensorium embedded within the greater process-informative omni-sensorium which is nature.” (See Ref. 1) This is why the Process Information model has been so important to me in order to add additional validity

3. 3 and meaning to my own data collection and analysis process. Rudimentary co-information (all phenomena whatsoever connected) is the cornerstone of all my Awareness model ideas. For those with a science background I present you with another quote written by Jeroen B.J. van Dijk, it further supports the short quote I have just cited. I suggest you take a special note of the last line, which is partly emboldened. It is important to know how my Awareness model works and what it means, at every level of reality. “…In all three above-mentioned information theories the amount of acquired knowledge is measured by comparing the already received symbolically expressed data to potentially available, but as yet unknown data. That is, by dividing the known data by the maximum amount of data, one can establish a relative measure of knowledge. This knowledge is typically passed on via symbolic units of expression – data-conveying signs taken from some earlier agreed-upon symbol system. In fact, the alphabets, mathematical symbols, coding systems, etc., that are used to express information and knowledge are typically taken for granted as pre-available givens. And although it may indeed be tempting to consider these data-conveying signs themselves as identical to the data themselves (and hence to data-based information and knowledge), this is definitely not the case. After all, the Diaphoric Definition of Data (DDD) and the therewith associated General Definition of Information (GDI) actually refer to the distinctions to which these signs are related (Nöth 1995, 80) – not to the signs themselves. However, in their attempt to ground data on supposedly elementary distinctions, information theorists end up neglecting the very process of information intake by means of which these distinctions are made in the first place. In this way, it is merely required to know that information intake works, not how it works.” (See Ref. 2) I believe data should be treated as what is there, not as how it is represented, i.e. not as numbers.” Ref. 1: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132228165/The-Process-Informativeness-of-Nature-Abstract-JBJ-Van- Dijk-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/132228165/The-Process-Informativeness-of-Nature-Abstract-JBJ-Van- Dijk-2013 Ref. 2: http://www.academia.edu/1424626/An_Introduction_to_Process-Information_- _From_Information_Theory_to_Experiential_Realityhttp://www.academia.edu/1424626/An_Introduction_to_Process-Information_- _From_Information_Theory_to_Experiential_Reality

4. 4 More general information to help you along As you will probably remember, Shelf Three of “My cosmological pantry” draws your attention to the parallel nature of three different physics theories. These are the Process Physics model (Cahill), the Bohm (Hiley) Implicit (holographic) model and my own Awareness model. Following my presentation of this particular slide, I will move onwards with a series of other slides that are designed to give you an enhanced picture of the attributes and workings of the Awareness model, so you will have a better idea as to how it more fully melds into the Cahill and Bohm models. Keep in mind I am talking about philosophical physics. This means physics that I have described as being at a fine quantum entangled (metaphysical) level. One could say that understanding reality is like unraveling a jumbo sized roll of wool into the air, and looking for patterns within both the principle thread of the wool as well as the micro sub-fibres (fine quantum entangled principle) emanating therefrom. From this analogy it is not too difficult to believe that reality is like a giant jumbled jigsaw puzzle with a hidden fourth dimension, other dimensions and 3D relativity (reflective) space within. I also think that the little used transcendental mathematics would be the type of mathematics required to disassemble such a massive degree of internal information and collective knowledge. You will discover in Shelves Three and Four that I suggest there are unusual blobs and denser layers of awareness within my concept of primordial reality. I suggest these unusual features have inherent processes and affiliations which have properties and linked processes that can be recognized as that of matter which manifests itself as being microscopic virtual particles. I suggest such particles may include instinct, awareness and phenomena related to scientific global consciousness experiments and similar.

5. 5 Another look at fine quantum entanglement (sub-quantum phenomena) I talked about sub-quantum phenomena in Shelf One. You will probably remember that I have designated these phenomena as being fine quantum entangled. I return to this topic again because in this particular shelf I am beginning to reach more deeply into fundamental physics ideas and I feel that you would expect me to have a little more than a casual idea as to what I m talking about (and the meaning thereof) regarding phenomena around which the whole of my Awareness model hinges. When one talks about blob communication with other blobs, and then eventually material objects emanating from such dialogue, it is a pretty tall ask. As I have repeatedly stated in all of my work, it is in this area that I feel contemporary mainstream physics is failing to meet its own expectations of itself to be an entity with a basket full of scientific ideas and attempting to make sense of them. The reasons why quantum mechanics (QM) is not employed across the board both under and above the Planck level is not because macroscopic and sub-atomic phenomena cannot be investigated as a single basket full of science goodies. It is merely because scientific investigative methodology demands that all findings must be absolutely correct or not correct in accordance with observed results. There is nothing new in these words and I feel readers should understand this fact quite clearly. It is not because QM cannot make predictions at the sub-quantum level (fine quantum entangled). It is the scientific methodology itself that is to blame for amateur scientists like me feeling deeply ill-at-ease when discussing highly abstract physics such as awareness, thought, blobs and how imaginary blobs may be communicating with each other. If you cannot fathom this type of methodology embraced within my Awareness model, then you are bound to be disappointed in most of the arguments I bring forward in this shelf and in Shelf Three.. I have copied and pasted the following science extract for you to read because I feel it brings together (in a much more formal scientific manner) most of my arguments. I especially draw your attention to the writer’s statement about the scientific need to be sensitive to microscopic (sub- quantum) information, as I attempt to do with my own work. Quote is on the next page:

6. 6 Measurement in the microscopic domain “Quantum mechanics (as well as relativity theory) distinguishes itself in a fundamental way from classical theories by hinging on the notion of measurement. Whereas in classical theories reference to `measurement' is dispensable, this no longer is the case in quantum mechanics. Here the so-called measurement problem has been a long-standing source of discomfort. In particular the suggestion of the `standard formalism of quantum mechanics' that `in measurement processes nature would behave differently from non-measurement processes (compare)' has been a bone of contention.measurement problemcompare Far from concluding from this that measurement should be exorcized from the foundations of quantum mechanics, I will abide in the following with the spirit of Bohr's fundamental insight (however, not with the specific way Bohr implemented that insight) that the only way of obtaining knowledge about microscopic reality is by performing measurements that are sensitive to the microscopic information, and that are able to amplify this information to the macroscopic dimensions we are able to observe. Unless we find ways to compensate for the influence of the particular way we have performed our measurements, the knowledge obtained on the microscopic object must be dependent on it. It seems to me that Bohr's conclusion is justified that `Einstein's ideal of having an objective description of microscopic physical reality' is simply unattainable, and that the suggestion -both in quantum mechanics textbooks as well as in the scientific literature- that `(standard) quantum mechanics can be seen as such an objective description' is misleading.”Bohr's fundamentalobjective http://www.academia.edu/1424626/An_Introduction_to_Process-Information_- _From_Information_Theory_to_Experiential_Reality

7. 7 I have often talked about the Planck level. What is it? The Planck level in physics symbolizes the point where there is no energy at all. It is the building block of all other forms of energy. It is the area from where electrons emerge. From the point of view of my Awareness model of physics I see it as being the conversion point of virtual phenomena inherent in my concept of a timeless (primordial) fourth dimension, into 3D materialist related relationships. This includes normal, materially driven causation. A formal definition of the Planck line I refer to is as follows: Quote: “Planck constant definition In 1905 the value (E), the energy of a charged atomic oscillator, was theoretically associated with the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself, representing the minimum amount of energy required to form an electromagnetic field (a "quantum"). Further investigation of quanta revealed behaviour associated with an independent unit ("particle") as opposed to an electromagnetic wave and was eventually given the term photon. The Planck relation now describes the energy of each photon in terms of the photon's frequency. This energy is extremely small in terms of ordinary experience.”photon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

8. 8 Pavlov – NOW, and blobs I have talked about the origins of reality as being a thought that I have subsequently named Pavlov – NOW. As I explained in Shelf One, in both everyday life and physics terms, the word now has no effective meaning whatsoever. An exact now can never be determined. In my Awareness model I claim “NOW“is a noun and it hovers exactly abreast of the Planck line. In other words, the new NOW is neither one feature or another (quantum or sub-quantum) which in turn means I am saying NOW is both materialistic and non-materialistic at the same time. In this sense, I feel by incorporating NOW as being a partner to the first thought that ever took place in reality, was a correct action. This is especially so because I further claim that all blobs (all blobs of information and knowledge whatsoever, including you and me) are derived from clones of the original thought, that, in turn, was imaginarily conceived in a timeless environment of elementary primordial awareness. What I am leading to is this. If I am arguing that all phenomena whatsoever are derived from a single thought entwined in an atmosphere of primordial awareness what variable facilitates the imaginary progression of the ceaseless process of blob evolution. In order to answer this question, this is where my concept of Pavlov’s response hypothesis fits. The Pavlov hypothesis is about a form of learning in which conditioned stimuli play a crucial role. It is a learning style in response to what was previously a neutral stimulus. As my thought process is a neutral stimulus (because it is nothing, originally derived from nothing) it seems to me to fit the neutral stimulus requirement of the elementary education of phenomena hypothesis first postulated by I. P. Pavlov. In other words, the Pavlov effect is the neutral phenomenon that engenders properties into my own blob phenomena which are self-referentially aware. As my Awareness model embraces the notion that each of my blob concepts and patterns of blobs have instantaneous memories, this means that I claim there is a progressive short term memory base in the reality system as a whole. I claim this in turn means there remains a progressive information and knowledge base that is not dependant on its past history to continue to grow. It remains perpetually self referential. I now quote a section of a Pavlov repose article. Quote is on the next page:

9. 9 Origins “I. P. Pavlov provided the most famous example of classical conditioning, though E. B. Twitmyer published his findings a year earlier (a case of simultaneous discovery).[5] During his research on the physiology of digestion in dogs, Pavlov noticed that, rather than simply salivating in the presence of food, the dogs began to salivate in the presence of the lab technician who normally fed them. Pavlov called this anticipatory salivation psychic secretion. From this observation he predicted that, if a particular stimulus in the dog's surroundings was present when the dog was given food, then this stimulus would become associated with food and cause salivation on its own. In his initial experiment, Pavlov used a bell to call the dogs to their food and, after a few repetitions, the dogs started to salivate in response to the bell. Pavlov called the bell the conditioned (or conditional) stimulus (CS) because its effect depended on its association with food. He called the food the unconditioned stimulus (US) because its effect did not depend on previous experience. Likewise, the response to the CS was the conditioned response (CR) and that to the US was the unconditioned response (UR). The timing between the presentation of the CS and US is integral to facilitating the conditioned response. Pavlov found that the shorter the interval between the bell's ring and the appearance of the food, the more quickly the dog learned the conditioned response and the stronger it was.[8]I. P. PavlovE. B. Twitmyer[5][8] As noted earlier, it is often thought that the conditioned response is a replica of the unconditioned response, but even Pavlov noted that saliva produced by the CS differs in composition from that produced by the US. In fact, the CR may be any new response to the previously neutral CS that can be clearly linked to experience with the conditional relationship of CS and US.[2][7] It was also thought that repeated pairings are necessary for conditioning to emerge, however many CRs can be learned with a single trial as in fear conditioning and taste aversion learning.”[2][7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

10. 10 Let us suppose something quite difficult together Shall we jointly explore the essential nature of the emergence of reality and call it an Awareness model of physics? Let us suppose that in the beginning, there was a blob of awareness, and nothing else, and so there was nothing for the blob to be aware of except itself. (Like in a state of deep mediation devoid of any interference whatsoever). Suppose this state of existence was unsatisfying to the blob, and so it struggled to facilitate something of which it could be aware. It symbolically pretended it was Pavlov and created a single process (thought) which became NOW. NOW is treated as a noun that effectively means nothing at all, as there is no such thing as exactly NOW. Suppose initially, the best it could do was to facilitate clones of itself, so then at least, it and its clones could be aware of each other through the commonality of itself and its entangled NOW. Then, once this process started, there would be no particular point at which it should stop facilitating, so we could assume it would continue until there were an unlimited number of blobs each aware of all the others, also with the commonness of NOW. However, if each blob only had a finite awareness, the degree to which it could be aware of other individual blobs, would be reduced in proportion to the total number of other blobs. So if a blob allowed itself to be equally aware of each other blob, its awareness of each other blob would be very weak, so would its inherent NOW. However, we can suppose that with awareness involving free will, each blob could choose to be especially aware of some other blobs, while only very weakly aware of the huge number of others. Let us consider awareness of one blob for another as being equivalent to a NOW link between the two, and let us consider each blob to be a NOW itself. So the setup of blobs aware of each other is equivalent to a structure of NOWs linked together as follows. 1] Every NOW is at least weakly linked to every other. 2] The total number of NOW and links is extremely large, so strong links are rare compared to the total number of links.

11. 11 3] The free will of each blob (NOW) means one cannot predict how strongly each uses its awareness to link itself to other blobs (NOW), so the strengths of the links involve a degree of randomness. (Equivalent to ambivalent thoughts, which are weak, and strong thoughts such as when we are unduly passionate about something). However, we have developed a structure that lacks one thing if it is to be called a complete model of reality. We do not have an iterative (meaning repeated) equation that allows it to generate patterns of 3D space and matter. The question then becomes, how do we get that equation into our Awareness model? The answer may be along the following lines: Suppose that as a result of being clones, all the blobs (with NOW) can to some degree share each others awareness as one. Then it would be possible for them to coordinate the strengths with which they choose to use their awareness to link to other NOWs. Let us suppose they collectively try various schemes but do not obtain satisfying results until they try a scheme that allows them to create an iterative equation allows our Awareness model to do so. The blobs would then find that this scheme would allow them to generate patterns of awareness that correspond to the patterns of information that was commensurate with an expanding 3D universe of space and matter. Then we only need to suppose that the blobs collectively find this sufficiently interesting so that they stick with this scheme. So in our Awareness model, space and matter consist of patterns of awareness that are determined by the degree to which blobs are aware of other blobs with NOWs. If our assumptions are correct, it would probably be not improper for us to compare the patterns of awareness in our Awareness model with the patterns of information in the Process Physics (Cahill) model and also parallel to the Bohm Implicit order (holographic model) as discussed in Shelf Three. © Jonathon Freeman 28/Jul/14

12. 12 10 2 6 8 4 9 1 5 3 7 A single pattern of information that means something. Each numeral represents characteristics and potential value of its original status (experience) in the first place.

13. 13 Blobs of information beginning to seek to facilitate patterns of information that mean something. (It need not be materialistic)

14. 14 10 2 4 1 5 3 7 8 9 6 A pattern of information that begins to have some sort of specific characteristics (characteristics are cited as numerals). Also note stronger links (lines), weaker links, and absent links indicating a permanently dead link of information.

15. 15 The progressive growth of concurrent processes between primordial (absolute) time and reflective (relative) time. Keys: X: Timeless primordial reality O: Relative time (reflective) space foam reality Figure 1: Primordial reality Figure 2: Relative, reflective space foam reality Figure 3, 4 and 5: Demonstrate the progressive concurrent movement and processes between primordial and reflective reality. Figure 6: The completeness of the concurrent association between primordial and reflective reality. The reason for an outer dotted perimeter is that this is intended to demonstrate that space/time will eventually disappear, leaving primordial reality intact as it always has been. The concurrence of the primordial (timeless) reality and 3D relativity time in 3D reality

16. 16 The working properties (tools) that underpin the concept and workings of a secular timeless reality, a reality that embraces 3D phenomena as well. I have previously talked about how I developed six simple tools that I feel assist in the dissemination and further understanding of reality in its broadest sense. This means both the processes of primordial reality (timelessness) and reflective 3D (space foam) reality. It had been my intention to describe all six of these tools in separate slides, but I have elected to do otherwise. The reason is that all six tools are already naturally present in the model itself, and all are related purely to inter- phenomenal causation, and I feel you are likely to work this out for yourself anyway. If you keep in mind that my Awareness model debate merely surrounds the shuffling, management and understanding of information relating to my central concept of Pavlov – NOW, then it is simply the different facets of causation that influence such juggling of information which you need to understand. I claim that all of my causational tools have their own individual meaning and purpose, and are always at play regardless of whatever environment or conditions they are employed in. See the following slide, which incorporates an illustrative guide to the six tools I am talking about.

17. 17 The real timeless reality in accordance with the Awareness model of physics This means the working properties (tools) that underpin the concept and workings of a secular, timeless reality, that embraces 3D phenomena as well. Pavlov-NOW All blobs of information and experiences were facilitated from here IT: Some sort of already facilitated phenomenon (tangible in some way). IF: Possible options to do something following a thought IS: The resultant experience (conclusions) following the expectations of an originating thought which becomes another IT Capacity: The feasibility of meeting the broad expectations of an originating thought (including nothing) Catalyst: The causal reason for a thought in the first place Propensity: The refined range of options that are best suited to fulfill the expectations of the original thought

18. 18 1 I claim at its deepest level, reality consists of awareness and everything that we can perceive and observe consists of patterns of information in that awareness. 2 In the beginning, awareness may have contained no patterns of information, and if so, we can suppose it had a capacity to create random patterns. 3 As random patterns were created, a proportion would have had structures that would allow them to be linked into more complex patterns. We can suppose that awareness allowed this to occur, and that complex patterns could persist better than the simpler ones. 4 Then, over time, patterns could emerge and evolve with increasing complexity. 5 We suppose that this eventually led to a set of patterns with the right features to produce the universe in which we find ourselves, that is, replication of patterns responsible for creating 3 dimensional space could produce the phenomenon of a universe expanding from a big bang. 6 We cannot perceive or observe anything outside our universe. However, if physical objects consist of patterns of information within a deeper level of awareness, then that awareness might constitute a kind of fourth dimension. 7 After we die, the patterns of information corresponding to our physical body must fade away. But how about the patterns of information corresponding to our mental activity? Could they continue to persist within the deeper level awareness even after our physical body no longer exists? I say yes. 8 Is our personal awareness linked to or produced by the deeper awareness? I say yes. Jonathon Freeman 1/Aug/14 The natural (scientific) Awareness model of physics together with its possible wider implications for culture

19. 19 The Awareness model is testable The Grant testing model is demonstrated in the blog titled “The Static Mass Universe Tracking [S.M.U.T.] particle experiment”