RANDOM NOTES I'll edit later....
L-field means LIFE FIELD in the book Design for Destiny by Edward L. Russell in 1972. Can you define an L-field or find other references to it by anyone else including Harold Saxon Burr? 1:39 PM
The term "L-field," as specifically defined by Edward L. Russell in his 1972 book *Design for Destiny*, refers to a **life field**, a subtle energy field hypothesized to surround and permeate all living organisms. Russell's concept isn't widely adopted or scientifically validated. His work leans heavily into metaphysical and spiritual interpretations, rather than grounding itself in established scientific methodology. Therefore, finding independent, mainstream scientific corroboration of his specific "L-field" definition is unlikely.
While Russell's L-field shares conceptual similarities with other ideas about biofields, it's crucial to differentiate it. His definition isn't directly comparable to other uses of the term "biofield" in contemporary research.
**Harold Saxon Burr's Work and its Relation to the L-field:**
Harold Saxon Burr's research on the "L-field" (often referred to as a "bio-electric field" or "electro-physiological field" in his writings) is a closer parallel, though still distinct from Russell's definition. Burr didn't use the term "L-field" in the same way Russell does. Burr's work focused on measurable electrical potentials in living organisms, proposing that these fields played a significant role in biological processes, growth, and health. His research involved measuring these fields using a voltmeter.
However, even Burr's findings, while intriguing, haven't been widely accepted within mainstream science due to difficulties in replication and the lack of a clear mechanism explaining how these fields could exert the influence he suggested.
**Key Differences:**
* **Measurement:** Burr attempted to *measure* the bioelectric fields using scientific instruments. Russell's concept of the L-field is more qualitative and philosophical, less focused on measurable properties.
* **Scientific Rigor:** Burr's work, although unconventional, was rooted in experimental measurement and observation. Russell's ideas are more aligned with metaphysical and spiritual perspectives.
* **Terminology:** While both use terms that resonate with a "life field" concept, Burr mostly used terms like "bioelectric field," while Russell coined "L-field" specifically.
In summary, while Russell's L-field and Burr's research on bioelectric fields share a common ground in positing an energy field related to life, they are distinct concepts. Russell's concept remains largely within the realm of his own work and lacks widespread scientific acceptance or independent verification. Burr's work, while scientifically-minded in approach, also hasn't achieved mainstream acceptance due to methodological limitations. It's vital to understand these differences when encountering discussions about "L-fields" in relation to biology and energy fields. 1:39 PM
I'll repeat our previous conversation then ask you to comment on the validity of understanding the L Field or bioelectrical field in terms of quantum physics. If you can find Doug Matzke's book "Deep Reality" and blend that view into your answer, all the better. thanks. 1:40 PML-field means LIFE FIELD in the book Design for Destiny by Edward L. Russell in 1972. Can you define an L-field or find other references to it by anyone else including Harold Saxon Burr? 1:39 PM The term "L-field," as specifically defined by Edward L. Russell in his 1972 book *Design for Destiny*, refers to a **life field**, a subtle energy field hypothesized to surround and permeate all living organisms. Russell's concept isn't widely adopted or scientifically validated. His work leans heavily into metaphysical and spiritual interpretations, rather than grounding itself in established scientific methodology. Therefore, finding independent, mainstream scientific corroboration of his specific "L-field" definition is unlikely.
While Russell's L-field shares conceptual similarities with other ideas about biofields, it's crucial to differentiate it. His definition isn't directly comparable to other uses of the term "biofield" in contemporary research.
**Harold Saxon Burr's Work and its Relation to the L-field:**
Harold Saxon Burr's research on the "L-field" (often referred to as a "bio-electric field" or "electro-physiological field" in his writings) is a closer parallel, though still distinct from Russell's definition. Burr didn't use the term "L-field" in the same way Russell does. Burr's work focused on measurable electrical potentials in living organisms, proposing that these fields played a significant role in biological processes, growth, and health. His research involved measuring these fields using a voltmeter.
However, even Burr's findings, while intriguing, haven't been widely accepted within mainstream science due to difficulties in replication and the lack of a clear mechanism explaining how these fields could exert the influence he suggested.
**Key Differences:**
* **Measurement:** Burr attempted to *measure* the bioelectric fields using scientific instruments. Russell's concept of the L-field is more qualitative and philosophical, less focused on measurable properties.
* **Scientific Rigor:** Burr's work, although unconventional, was rooted in experimental measurement and observation. Russell's ideas are more aligned with metaphysical and spiritual perspectives.
* **Terminology:** While both use terms that resonate with a "life field" concept, Burr mostly used terms like "bioelectric field," while Russell coined "L-field" specifically.
In summary, while Russell's L-field and Burr's research on bioelectric fields share a common ground in positing an energy field related to life, they are distinct concepts. Russell's concept remains largely within the realm of his own work and lacks widespread scientific acceptance or independent verification. Burr's work, while scientifically-minded in approach, also hasn't achieved mainstream acceptance due to methodological limitations. It's vital to understand these differences when encountering discussions about "L-fields" in relation to biology and energy fields. 1:39 PM 1:41 PM
The question of whether the L-field, or more broadly, bioelectrical fields, can be understood through the lens of quantum physics is complex and currently lacks a definitive answer. The validity of such an understanding hinges on several factors, and the answer likely lies somewhere between "partially" and "potentially, but much more research is needed."
Let's break it down:
**1. The Problem of Definition:** As the previous conversation highlights, the term "L-field" itself is ambiguous. Edward Russell's metaphysical interpretation differs significantly from Harold Burr's more scientifically grounded, albeit still controversial, approach to bioelectric fields. Any attempt to apply quantum physics must first clarify which "L-field" or biofield we're discussing. Are we talking about measurable electrical potentials (Burr), a more subtle, unmeasurable energy field (Russell), or something else entirely?
**2. Burr's Bioelectric Fields and Quantum Physics:** Burr's work, while not directly invoking quantum mechanics, hints at possibilities. If we consider his measured bioelectric fields, could quantum phenomena play a role in their generation, maintenance, and influence on biological processes? This is a valid area of inquiry. Quantum biology, a burgeoning field, explores the impact of quantum effects on biological systems. For instance, quantum coherence and entanglement might play a subtle role in processes like photosynthesis or enzyme function. It's *conceivable* that these quantum effects could contribute to or even underlie the bioelectric fields Burr measured, but evidence is currently lacking.
**3. Russell's L-field and Quantum Physics:** Extending quantum physics to Russell's L-field presents a greater challenge. Russell's concept is heavily steeped in metaphysics and lacks the empirical grounding necessary for a scientific analysis. While some interpret quantum physics as opening the door to subtle energy fields and consciousness, this remains highly speculative and outside the mainstream scientific consensus. Connecting Russell's L-field to quantum physics would require a substantial shift in our current understanding of both quantum mechanics and biology.
**4. Doug Matzke's *Deep Reality* and the Discussion:** I don't have access to real-time information, including the contents of specific books. Therefore, I cannot directly incorporate Doug Matzke's views from *Deep Reality* into this response. However, to effectively address this, information about Matzke's perspective on the interaction between quantum physics and subtle energy fields or consciousness would be necessary. His work might offer insights into the philosophical and potentially scientific arguments for or against this connection.
Is there a field called "quantum biology"? DEfine it please
Yes, there is a burgeoning field called **quantum biology**. It's an interdisciplinary field that explores the role of quantum mechanics in biological systems. Instead of simply applying classical physics to understand biological processes, quantum biology investigates how quantum phenomena, such as superposition, entanglement, and tunneling, might influence biological function.
A precise definition is difficult because the field is still developing, but in essence, quantum biology seeks to answer questions like:
* **How do quantum effects impact biological processes?** This goes beyond simply saying quantum mechanics underlies the underlying physics; it asks how specifically quantum effects, not classically describable effects, affect the dynamics and function of biological systems.
* **Are there biological processes that fundamentally *require* quantum mechanics for their operation?** This is a key question driving much of the research. If classical physics were sufficient, we wouldn't need quantum biology.
* **What are the mechanisms by which quantum coherence and entanglement are maintained in biological environments, given the typically disruptive effects of the surrounding environment (e.g., temperature, water molecules)?** This is a major challenge in the field, as decoherence—the loss of quantum properties—is expected to be rapid in biological systems.
**Examples of areas studied within quantum biology include:**
* **Photosynthesis:** The remarkably efficient energy transfer in photosynthesis is a prime candidate for quantum effects playing a crucial role. Specifically, quantum coherence and entanglement are thought to be involved in optimizing the light-harvesting process.
* **Magnetoreception:** Some animals, like birds, appear to be able to sense the Earth's magnetic field for navigation. Quantum phenomena, such as radical pair mechanisms, are proposed as explanations for this ability.
* **Enzyme catalysis:** Quantum tunneling is suspected to play a role in enzymatic reactions, allowing for reactions to occur faster than predicted by classical models.
* **Olfaction (sense of smell):** Some theories suggest that quantum effects might be involved in the recognition of odorant molecules.
* **DNA mutations and repair:** Quantum effects like tunneling are thought to play a role in DNA mutations and the repair processes.
It's important to note that quantum biology is a relatively new and controversial field. While there's growing evidence suggesting the involvement of quantum phenomena in some biological processes, much research is still needed to fully understand their significance and mechanisms. Some aspects remain highly speculative, and rigorous experimental verification is often challenging. However, the potential implications are significant, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of fundamental biological processes. 1:42 PM
http://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=fb1ed1f98108a7ad&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22quantum+biology%22+wikipedia&btnG=Search
In 1963, Per-Olov Löwdin published proton tunneling as another mechanism for DNA mutation. In his paper, he stated that there is a new field of study called "quantum biology".[10] In 1979, the Soviet and Ukrainian physicist Alexander Davydov published the first textbook on quantum biology entitled Biology and Quantum Mechanics.[11][12]
Mitochondria
edit
Mitochondria have been demonstrated to utilize quantum tunneling in their function as the powerhouse of eukaryotic cells. Similar to the light reactions in the thylakoid, linearly-associated membrane-bound proteins comprising the electron transport chain (ETC) energetically link the reduction of O2 with the development of a proton motive gradient (H+) across the inner membrane of the mitochondria. This energy stored as a proton motive gradient is then coupled with the synthesis of ATP. It is significant that the mitochondrion conversion of biomass into chemical ATP achieves 60-70% thermodynamic efficiency, far superior to that of man-made engines.[84] This high degree of efficiency is largely attributed to the quantum tunnelling of electrons in the ETC and of protons in the proton motive gradient. Indeed, electron tunneling has already been demonstrated in certain elements of the ETC including NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase(Complex I) and CoQH2-cytochrome c reductase (Complex III).[85][86]
Pseudoscience
edit
Alongside the multiple strands of scientific inquiry into quantum mechanics has come unconnected pseudoscientific interest; this caused scientists to approach quantum biology cautiously.[111]
Hypotheses such as orchestrated objective reduction which postulate a link between quantum mechanics and consciousness have drawn criticism from the scientific community with some claiming it to be pseudoscientific and "an excuse for quackery".[112]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
Orchestrated objective reduction
• Article
• Talk
• Language
• Watch
• Edit
Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a highly controversial theory postulating that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons (rather than being a product of neural connections). The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1] The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics Roger Penrose, and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]
Orch OR
edit
Penrose outlined a predecessor to Orch OR in The Emperor's New Mind, coming to the problem from a mathematical viewpoint and in particular Gödel's theorem, but lacked a detailed proposal for how quantum processes could be implemented in the brain. Stuart Hameroff separately worked in cancer research and anesthesia, which gave him an interest in brain processes. Hameroff read Penrose's book and suggested to him that microtubules within neurons were suitable candidate sites for quantum processing, and ultimately for consciousness.[30][31] Throughout the 1990s, the two collaborated on the Orch OR theory, which Penrose published in Shadows of the Mind (1994).[19]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
David Chalmers argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[61] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[62][63][64] He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.[64]
See also
edit
• Copenhagen interpretation
• Electromagnetic theories of consciousness
• Holonomic brain theory
• Many-minds interpretation
• Penrose interpretation
• Quantum Aspects of Life (book)
• Quantum mind
• Quantum cognition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
22
Responses