Interview with Dr. Horn – Dr. Horn is a career researcher, theologian, and a well known public figure who has appeared on CNN, CBN, Fox News, Sid Roth’s it’s Supernatural, and more!
Interview with Dr. Horn – Dr. Horn is a career researcher, theologian, and a well known public figure who has appeared on CNN, CBN, Fox News, Sid Roth’s it’s Supernatural, and more!
Today’s theoretical physics sounds like ancient magic, but it’s looking forward, daring to imagine endless possibilities. What are they and when will the theories on the edge of progress change our lives? We’ve talked about this with brilliant physicist, father of the string theory – Michio Kaku.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Dr. Michio Kaku, thank you very much for being with us today on this programme. It’s a great pleasure. So lots to talk about because for us, you’re one of the greatest minds of our times. What I think about it, every day there are new gadgets, there are small scale discoveries. But then again, for years, there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in physics that would help us in general understanding of how the world works. What does it really mean? Does it mean that we’ve reached a borderline of what a man can actually discover about the physics of the world?
Michio Kaku: No, I think that we’re just beginning to probe the mysteries of the universe. The Nobel Prize was given recently for the discovery of gravity waves, and we hope to put gravity wave detectors in outer space, a new kind of telescope, a gravity telescope. Think about it! All telescopes today use light. Now we use radio to peer into black holes. Next will be gravity telescopes that will allow us to peer inside a black hole at the instant of creation itself. And so we’re going to begin a new realm of astronomy with gravity wave detectors, starting with the discovery just made a few years ago.
SS: Can you explain to me about this Nobel Prize, and physicists who got it because there’re discoveries of gravity waves, what does it mean? Can we actually control gravity? Are we getting closer to controlling gravity? I mean, I have my personal interests.
MK: No, we cannot control gravity, but we can measure it and harness it and probe some of the deepest secrets of nature itself.
SS: What would that give us as humans on earth?
MK: First of all, we’ll begin to understand where it all came from, how the universe was created. People ask the question, “Well, if there was an explosion at the beginning of time, where did the explosion come from? What was the universe like before Genesis?” Well, we physicists believe that the universe is a bubble of some sort. It’s expanding. That’s the Big Bang theory. However, we think there are other bubbles up there, other bubble universes, a multiverse of universes. So instead of just one soap bubble universe is expanding, we live in a soap bubble, a bubble bath, a bubble bath of universes. And when these bubbles collide, we think that could be the big bang. So this cosmic expansion that took place at the beginning of time may have taken place because of the collision of universes or perhaps the fissioning of a universe into two smaller universes. And so we’re going to put into outer space a gravity wave telescope, perhaps in a few decades, that will allow us to peer into the instant of creation. We’re going to get baby pictures of the infant universe as it emerges from the womb. And maybe we will find evidence of an umbilical cord. An umbilical cord connecting our infant universe to a mother universe. And perhaps that is the Big Bang.
SS: But could we ever get closer to understanding and somehow controlling time if we have a better understanding of how gravity works?
MK: Well, eventually, maybe millennia from now, we may have enough power to begin to think about building a time machine or building perhaps a space warp, just like you see in the movies…
SS: I was going to ask you that. Is it is it really a pipe dream for people or is it a question of future?
MK: It is a pipe dream for us because we’re so primitive. However, maybe in outer space, aliens have already done this, but it would take the power of a black hole in order to rip the fabric of spacetime. Einstein’s equations do allow for time machines, for example. Einstein said that time is a river. It’s a river that speeds up and slows down. But it’s a river that can fork into two roads or perhaps a river that can have whirlpools, whirlpools which would make time travel possible. Now, this is not for us, but I think in the far future, if we have enough energy, perhaps we’ll be able to bend time into a pretzel and perhaps maybe even drill a hole through space and time. And that’s called a wormhole.
SS: Well, there have been many theories so far that are helping us better understand how the universe works. But you’ve contributed to one of the main ones. That is the string field theory. So the string field theory, if I understand correctly, in essence, is a theory that imagines the world made up of different strings of energy. So if I gather it correctly, does this mean that in some sense, in essence, we’re nothing but string music?
MK: That’s right. We think that the variety of subatomic particles we have – hundreds of subatomic particles we get by smashing protons apart in Geneva, Switzerland, are nothing but musical notes on a tiny, tiny vibrating string. So this would be an electron. This would be a neutrino. That would be a quark. They’re nothing but different vibrations of a tiny violin string. So what is physics? Physics is nothing but the harmonies you can create on vibrating strings. What is chemistry? Chemistry is the melodies. The melodies you can play on strings. What is the universe? The universe is a symphony of strings. And then what is the mind of God that Albert Einstein wrote about for the last 30 years of his life? The mind of God would be cosmic music. Cosmic music resonating throughout the universe. That would be, quote, “the mind of God” that Albert Einstein wrote about.
SS: Is this why a lot of people actually say (I think Herman Hesse has it also in his book) that music is so much more than any other part of any other art, just because it’s unexplainable how it works on souls of people, and you can just gather people and make them cry under a music and it doesn’t need translation because it is what we are?
MK: Think of all the paradigms of nature, which is the richest one? For example, some people think that maybe orbits are the paradigm of Mother Nature, but you cannot create too many solar systems with objects going around other objects. But think about music. Music has the richest set of complexities, and harmonies, and rhythms of all the paradigms of Mother Nature. Music is the one that is the most complex, the most sophisticated, and it’s the medium that Mother Nature uses to create the diversity of protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos that make up our universe. And so we think that in some sense, the melodies of nature is physics.
SS: I want to talk to you about another very popular theory, which is the multiverse theory, and that’s been very popular also in science fiction movies lately. What do you make of it? Does this mean that there are parallel realities to our reality?
MK: Well, according to quantum mechanics, objects could exist in multiple realities. I’m speaking here in Moscow about quantum computers – computers that actually compute in parallel universes. You see, an electron, we think, is nothing but a dot that sits at a certain point. But the quantum theory says, “No! The electron could be in many places at the same time”. Now, that boggles the mind. But how is it possible that an electron can be in two places at the same time? Because the electron exists in a multiverse, a multiverse of parallel universes, and therefore that allows us, we think, to create a new kind of computer. That’s why I’m here in Moscow to talk about this – a quantum computer that computes in parallel universes.
SS: So is this the big breakthrough in physics that we start talking about from the beginning of this interview?
MK: That’s right. We no longer believe in a UNIverse. That is a one universe theory. We think that our universe can coexist with other universes. And we think that explains a lot of the mysteries of Mother Nature. For example, it looks as if our universe was tuned just right to allow for humans to exist. If the nuclear force were stronger, the Sun would have burnt out billions of years ago. If the nuclear force were weaker, the Sun would never have formed. And so the universe seems to be tuned just right to make humans. Now, does that mean that there’s a God that created humans? Not necessarily. It means that there are other universes where the Sun never ignited, other universes where the Sun burnt out too quickly. We’re lucky. We’re lucky to live in a universe that is just right to allow for life.
SS: So what you’re saying would actually exclude an option of having multiple mes or multiple yous in different universes and parallel universe because the Sun never ignited there, or the Sun burnt out too quickly there? Am I right?
MK: No. In some parallel universes there’s no life because the Sun never ignited or the Sun burnt out too quickly. However, there are other universes that look just like ours, where we have twins of ourselves. When I look in the mirror, I realize that I’m not really seeing myself as I really am. When I look in a mirror, I see myself a billionth of a second ago because that’s how long it takes for light to go from here to there and back. And I also realize that when I look in a mirror I’m seeing waves. Millions and millions of waves that look like me, but actually are not. And some of these waves go in different directions. So one day I’ll decide to go to school, another day I’ll decide to go to the beach. It’s the same me splitting apart into multiple universes.
SS: So does this mean that there is a parallel universe where another me didn’t commit the mistakes of my life in this universe?
MK: That’s right. Or another universe where you made a lot more mistakes. And in this universe, you’re fortunate enough to be here.
SS: How do they interconnect? I mean, do my decisions in this life, in this universe affect what happens to me in a parallel universe?
MK: For the most part, the answer is no. For the most part, we cannot enter another parallel universe. In other words, universes are vibrating, and they vibrate in unison. But these universes begin to separate with time, and therefore it’s very difficult to enter a parallel universe because we’re no longer vibrating at the same frequency as these other universes. And so in this room, there are the waves of dinosaurs, in this room there are the waves of aliens, the waves of all sorts of crazy things. The waves of a universe where people never existed. Except we’re not vibrating at the same rate anymore. We’ve decohered from them, so we cannot talk to dinosaurs. In other words, they are probably dinosaurs in this room right now. It sounds crazy, right? But we’re not vibrating at the same frequency as them. So we can’t talk to them. We can’t interact with them anymore.
SS: There may not be this tangible way of connecting to me or to dinosaurs, but there must be something that connects us all. What is it?
MK: That’s right. There is a way. And at the subatomic level it’s called ‘entanglement’, where quantum computers compute in different universes. So the computer exists not in one universe, but in many universes simultaneously. And that’s why it’s so powerful, it’s more powerful than a conventional computer which computes with zeros and ones, zeros and ones, because a quantum computer computes in multiple universes. Now, this may blow your mind. This sounds like science fiction, but hey, we call it physics.
SS: Would that computer, quantum computer eventually, in, I don’t know, a hundred thousand years, allow me or you to break through this bubble – this universe – and actually meet me in the next bubble – a parallel universe?
MK: It’s conceivable. Very difficult. In fact, that’s why quantum computers are so difficult to create, because we want to make all the electrons vibrate in unison. And when they decohere, that they split apart into two universes, then they no longer can compute anymore. And so, believe it or not, the future of civilization, all the computational power of a future civilization may depend upon computing in multiple universes. And so this is not science fiction anymore – the world economy could one day depend upon this.
SS: You brought up quantum physics, talk to me about it, because it was too complicated for me to grasp all that it’s about. There’s one thing that I think I understand about it, and that is that a wave becomes a particle when observed, and when it is observed it’s a wave of possibilities. So my friends, my mystic friends, what they gather out of it is that observations and the power of mind can actually shape the world around you. Basically, you think of something, and you visualise it, and that comes true. What do you make out of it? Is this how it works?
MK: Well, the greatest paradox in all of science that really encapsulates what we’re talking about is called the cat problem. The Schrodinger cat problem. If I put a cat in a box and connect the cat to a gun, and the gun is connected to uranium. Uranium is a quantum mechanical thing. It radiates radiation, quantum mechanically. It sets off the gun, which then kills the cat. So the question is, if you put everything in a box and you can’t look at it, “Is the cat dead or alive?” Well, we physicists say that you have to write the wave of a dead cat and added to the wave of a live cat. The cat is neither dead nor alive, the cat exists simultaneously in two states, it’s a nether cat[SA3] . OK? Now you may say, “This is crazy. I mean, you physicists are lunatics”. But this cat could be an electron, and the electron can exist in two states at the same time. So if electrons can do it, why not cats? Now, the way that we physicists get around this is that the universe has split in half. In one half, there is a dead cat; in the other universe, there is a live cat. And that’s how we explain the Schrodinger problem. The multiverse idea allows you to explain how cats can be both dead and alive simultaneously. Now, this means, by the way, that people who are dead in our universe could be alive in another universe. We can’t talk to them because we are no longer vibrating at the same frequency. But it means that Elvis Presley could be alive in a parallel universe.
SS: Would that bring up the whole dogma of soul and what happens to it after the body is dead here on earth? Does that somehow connect to what you are saying?
MK: It somehow does, however a thousand years ago, philosophers believed in dualism. The soul and the body were separate. And when you die, this all went to Heaven and the body went to the earth. That’s how it was for thousands of years. And then we have now neuroscience. Neuroscience says, “No, no, no, no. It’s just the brain. The brain thinks there’s a soul, but it’s just neurons”. Now we’re beginning to come back to the way it was a thousand years ago, because now we are thinking about digital consciousness, because it’s possible to digitise everything known about you: your credit card transactions, your videotape, YouTube interviews, everything known about you can be digitalised. And when you die, your digital fingerprint lives forever. And we’re going to get very good at this. In the future, we’ll be able to digitise everything that is known about us.
SS: I found something that you said fascinating and very interesting. You have said that your life’s work is to take the laws of physics and summarise it into an equation that is one inch long, and that equation would be ‘the God of Einstein’. You said that, right? So does that mean that basically you are looking for God and is God an equation?
MK: Well, we think that string theory, which summarises all known physical laws, can be summarised into an equation one inch long. That’s my equation, that string field theory. Now, why don’t we physicists win the Nobel Prize then? Because there’s a problem. It turns out that we now believe that membranes can also exist with strings. So not just strings, but like little balls, beach balls. In fact, our universe could be a membrane of some sort. And that theory has not been put into its final form yet. But string theory, yes, string theory can be summarised into a one inch equation, which happens to be my equation. That’s my contribution to string theory – to be able to summarise it into an equation one inch long.
SS: But what struck me, what you said was the word ‘God’. ‘That would be the God of Einstein’.
MK: No, Einstein said that he wants to read God’s thoughts. These are his exact words. OK? He didn’t necessarily say this equation created God or this equation was God. He said that this equation is God’s thoughts. That’s how he phrased it. So he evaded the question, “Which came first, God or the equation?” He did not say which came first. However, he did believe that there are two kinds of gods that we have to separate. The first kind of God is the personal God, the God that answers prayers, that God that smites the Philistines, the God of the Old Testament. He did not believe in that personal God. He believed in the God of Spinoza, the God of harmony, beauty, simplicity. The universe didn’t have to be beautiful. Universe is gorgeous and simple. You can put all the laws of physics into one little equation. That is not an accident. So Einstein said that there is a God of physical law, not a personal God, that answers your prayers and smites the Philistines, but a God of the universe that gives us the physical laws. In other words, a lawgiver, is what Einstein said.
SS: Is this your understanding of God as well?
MK: That’s my understanding of God. Now, where this equation came from, we don’t know. We just know that once you have this equation and you solve it, you get electrons, and protons, and neutrinos, and Big Bangs, and Earths, and water, and people.
SS: What comes first, in your opinion, equation or God?
MK: I don’t know. I think that’s where we begin to have no words to describe which came first. Einstein would say probably that God came first, and God’s thoughts are the equation. And therefore, in some sense, these are the thoughts that God created.
SS: He also said once that with progress, the understanding of physics gets simpler and simpler. See, we have all these concepts: quantum physics, waves, particles, membranes, strings, black holes. I mean, it’s hard enough to even start to understand one of those concepts. How is it getting simpler?
MK: Well, you know, I have friends of mine who are getting PhDs in English literary criticism and they write PhD theses on Shakespeare and “what did he really mean when he said this?” And I said to myself, “English is getting more and more complicated. Every year, somebody writes another PhD thesis on James Joyce, or Hemingway, or Shakespeare!” So English is getting more complicated with time. Physics is getting simpler, and simpler, and simpler. The laws of electricity and magnetism, which makes this interview possible, is called Maxwell’s equations. Maxwell’s equation is half an inch long. It’s the divergence of the F tensor is zero. Then light comes right out of it. It turns out that Einstein’s equation for gravity is a little bit longer: gμν = 0. That’s Einsteins famous equation. That makes possible black holes and Big Bangs. The quantum theory is messier. It’s about a page long, but it can be summarised into string theory, which is, again, governed by my equation. And then you realise that physics is getting simpler and simpler.
SS: You have pointed out paradox yourself that the equations get simpler, yet we humans here on earth in this reality tend to complicate things just the same as we complicated them a hundred, two hundred, ten thousand years ago. Why isn’t life for us getting simpler and easier in understanding of how we should live if the laws of physics and how everything else works around us, like you said, is getting simpler?
MK: Because the fundamental laws, we think, are very simple and pure at the beginning of time. But after the Big Bang took place, things became complex. The human brain, for example, is the most complex object in the known universe. In the whole universe, the galaxies of galaxies, we have not seen anything resembling the complexity of the human brain. And there is a hundred billion neurons there. Each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. There are trillions of thoughts that we, our brain is capable of, and because of this, it means that human interactions are extremely difficult. So the fundamental laws of atoms are simple, but how they create the human brain and how humans interact with other humans is extremely complicated.
SS: I want to talk to you about another thing. There is a UK, Canadian and Italian study that has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe is basically just a vast and complex hologram. What that means in my terms is that everything we experience is projected at us from a border line, somewhere from there, from the universe. Is this what it means?
MK: Well, string theory gives us as a byproduct the holographic universe. Now think of a hologram: a hologram is a two-dimensional, it’s flat like this. But when you shine a laser light, out comes a three-dimensional wavefront. So if your eyeball is sitting over here, you see three dimensions. This is how, for example, at Disneyworld and amusement parks, ghosts and all sorts of creatures come out in three dimensions. How is that possible? It’s because it’s a flat sheet of glass that has a hologram on it. You shine laser beams on the outside from the backside and out comes a three-dimensional image. We think our universe is three-dimensional because we have length, width and height. String theory says, “No. The universe is perhaps ten-, maybe eleven-dimensional. There are other dimensions out there that we cannot visualise”. Now, to see this, think of a child. I used to spend a lot of time in San Francisco looking at the fish swimming in a Japanese tea garden. The fish live in two dimensions. They can only swim left, right, forward, backward. The concept of up beyond the pond is totally alien to them. They cannot visualise the world of up. It’s only a two dimensional pond. And then I said, “If there is a scientist fish there, the scientist fish would say, ‘Bah! Humbug. There’s no third dimension. There’s only two dimensions. Everybody knows this! The pond is the universe!’”. And then I imagine as a child grabbing one of these scientist fish, lifting the scientist fish into the world of up, what would he see? He would see three-dimensional beings moving without fins, a new law of physics; beings breathing without water, a new law of biology. And then I put the fish back in the pond in my dream and then I said, “How would he explain it to the other fish? ‘I was in a parallel universe! I left the universe! I saw creatures that can move in the third dimension!’ And the other fish would say, ‘You’re crazy!’” Well, today we believe that we are the fish. We spend all our lives in three dimensions moving forward, backward, left, right, up, down, thinking that’s all there is. What you see is what there is, nothing more.
SS: So you’re hoping for someone to grab you out of the universe and like, “Hello! Look what’s going on in here!”?
MK: Well, it’s conceivable that maybe one day somebody up there in another dimension, and another multiverse, and another bubble universe will come to our universe and grab us and say, “Look, look! There’s a whole universe out there, a parallel universe in dimensions beyond the dimensions that that you’d know and love”.
SS: Thank you so much, Dr. Kaku, it was fascinating talking to you. And we thank hotel Lotte Plaza in Moscow for allowing us to arrange this interview and make this happen. Thank you.
MK: My pleasure.
Professor of Quantum Physics, Heriot-Watt University
PhD Candidate of Quantum Physics, Heriot-Watt University
Alternative facts are spreading like a virus across society. Now it seems they have even infected science – at least the quantum realm. This may seem counter intuitive. The scientific method is after all founded on the reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability. A fact, as established by a measurement, should be objective, such that all observers can agree with it.
But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.
Observers are powerful players in the quantum world. According to the theory, particles can be in several places or states at once – this is called a superposition. But oddly, this is only the case when they aren’t observed. The second you observe a quantum system, it picks a specific location or state – breaking the superposition. The fact that nature behaves this way has been proven multiple times in the lab – for example, in the famous double slit experiment (see video below).
In 1961, physicist Eugene Wigner proposed a provocative thought experiment. He questioned what would happen when applying quantum mechanics to an observer that is themselves being observed. Imagine that a friend of Wigner tosses a quantum coin – which is in a superposition of both heads and tails – inside a closed laboratory. Every time the friend tosses the coin, they observe a definite outcome. We can say that Wigner’s friend establishes a fact: the result of the coin toss is definitely head or tail.
Wigner doesn’t have access to this fact from the outside, and according to quantum mechanics, must describe the friend and the coin to be in a superposition of all possible outcomes of the experiment. That’s because they are “entangled” – spookily connected so that if you manipulate one you also manipulate the other. Wigner can now in principle verify this superposition using a so-called “interference experiment” – a type of quantum measurement that allows you to unravel the superposition of an entire system, confirming that two objects are entangled.
When Wigner and the friend compare notes later on, the friend will insist they saw definite outcomes for each coin toss. Wigner, however, will disagree whenever he observed friend and coin in a superposition.
This presents a conundrum. The reality perceived by the friend cannot be reconciled with the reality on the outside. Wigner originally didn’t consider this much of a paradox, he argued it would be absurd to describe a conscious observer as a quantum object. However, he later departed from this view, and according to formal textbooks on quantum mechanics, the description is perfectly valid.
The scenario has long remained an interesting thought experiment. But does it reflect reality? Scientifically, there has been little progress on this until very recently, when Časlav Brukner at the University of Vienna showed that, under certain assumptions, Wigner’s idea can be used to formally prove that measurements in quantum mechanics are subjective to observers.
Brukner proposed a way of testing this notion by translating the Wigner’s friend scenario into a framework first established by the physicist John Bell in 1964. Brukner considered two pairs of Wigners and friends, in two separate boxes, conducting measurements on a shared state – inside and outside their respective box. The results can be summed up to ultimately be used to evaluate a so called “Bell inequality”. If this inequality is violated, observers could have alternative facts.
We have now for the first time performed this test experimentally at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh on a small-scale quantum computer made up of three pairs of entangled photons. The first photon pair represents the coins, and the other two are used to perform the coin toss – measuring the polarisation of the photons – inside their respective box. Outside the two boxes, two photons remain on each side that can also be measured.
Despite using state-of-the-art quantum technology, it took weeks to collect sufficient data from just six photons to generate enough statistics. But eventually, we succeeded in showing that quantum mechanics might indeed be incompatible with the assumption of objective facts – we violated the inequality.
The theory, however, is based on a few assumptions. These include that the measurement outcomes are not influenced by signals travelling above light speed and that observers are free to choose what measurements to make. That may or may not be the case.
Another important question is whether single photons can be considered to be observers. In Brukner’s theory proposal, observers do not need to be conscious, they must merely be able to establish facts in the form of a measurement outcome. An inanimate detector would therefore be a valid observer. And textbook quantum mechanics gives us no reason to believe that a detector, which can be made as small as a few atoms, should not be described as a quantum object just like a photon. It may also be possible that standard quantum mechanics does not apply at large length scales, but testing that is a separate problem.
This experiment therefore shows that, at least for local models of quantum mechanics, we need to rethink our notion of objectivity. The facts we experience in our macroscopic world appear to remain safe, but a major question arises over how existing interpretations of quantum mechanics can accommodate subjective facts.
Some physicists see these new developments as bolstering interpretations that allow more than one outcome to occur for an observation, for example the existence of parallel universes in which each outcome happens. Others see it as compelling evidence for intrinsically observer-dependent theories such as Quantum Bayesianism, in which an agent’s actions and experiences are central concerns of the theory. But yet others take this as a strong pointer that perhaps quantum mechanics will break down above certain complexity scales.
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
With permission from
Sean Martin — Daily Express July 14, 2017
July 17, 2017
“There are an infinite number of universes,
and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe.”
— Dr Robert Lanza
Scientists are still baffled by consciousness and questions about why we have it and how we have it constantly arising remain unanswered.
One theory is that consciousness is created on a quantum, sub-atomic scale through energy which is constantly contained in the universe.
The theory is based on Einstein’s famous quote, when he said: “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
Dr David Hamilton said all consciousness is and always has been in the universe through quantum particles, and when you are born, it is channelled into a physical being.
Writing for website Heal Your Life, Dr Hamilton said:
“I believe that each of us exists before we are born on earth. Each of us is pure consciousness, currently focused in a physical dimension.
Science would typically say that life is random, ultimately stemming from the random birth of subatomic particles, but I don’t quite agree with that. Mainstream science says that consciousness must be a side-effect of brain chemistry. But I believe that the brain merely affects consciousness, much in the same way that the quality of wiring in a TV affects the signal processing and thus the quality of picture you get.
The TV does not create the program, and nor does the brain create consciousness. Consciousness is something fundamental to nature – it is stitched into the very fabric of reality.
Consciousness transcends time and space. If you start with the assumption that you exist as pure consciousness, then you must have existed before you were born.
Really, you are everywhere and everywhere!”
Dr Robert Lanza shares a similar theory.
He believes our minds exist through energy which is contained in our bodies and is released once our physical beings cease in a process he calls ‘biocentrism’. As such, when our physical bodies die, the energy of our consciousness could continue on a quantum level.
Dr Lanza says that “there are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe”.
Happy birthday Sha Tara! All the best and many more!
[thoughts from ~burning woman~ by Sha’Tara]
Over the years which this world has claimed from me, the one I refer to as “me” has awakened from the induced mind-sleep of the Matrix environment that holds this world, and this universe, in its bondage to the space-time impression of reality. No longer the zombie, I awakened to a strange reality that when shared with others who appear as like to me, did not understand it. They feared it, mocked it, or avoided it.
Early in this incarnation I became aware of the greatest loneliness: having no one else to share this awakening and disturbing “me” with. Then came acceptance of the fact that even in the most intimate of relationships, or groups of like-minded action people, I remained completely alone. Then came a new longing: for being truly alone. Never do I feel more lost than among people interacting on their various social levels whose emotion-laden stories, however poignant, however brutal, or however marvellous, bear no similarity to my stories. I hear them, as in a movie, a novel, a dream, or the thundering of a stormy sea against the rock-strewn shore in the darkness. The only connection I feel is through my choice of compassion as my life’s companion.
I awakened to my own reality of past lives and gradually future lives manifested also in my hungry mind. I learned early on that I come from infinity, from spirit, formless, existing beyond time and space. I learned that I am a mind, that which encompasses infinity without and within space-time, and I learned that I am also of this place, a place called Earth. I learned bits and pieces of my history, and discovering my many names, which as they were added to each other, allowed my mind to expand to n-th degrees beyond the limitations of Matrix-controlled *ISSA lives.
It took a lifetime to realize the necessity of rejecting the Matrix programming I was born with; of overthrowing the labels my parents, and society in general, chained me to; of rejecting, one by one, every aspect of mankind’s civilization as having any worth in my quest for self-awareness and self-knowledge.
I know why I did it, but how I did it could be of some interest to others in a similar quandary, i.e., being in this world but not of this world. I did it by plunging myself wholeheartedly in everything the Matrix offered me for success: my religion; my schools (education); my family; my politics and finally, my profession and the things I owned and accumulated to “prove” my worth. I left no stone unturned to make sure I knew what each one offered, and this is what I discovered: each one was a dead-end street. Each attempt at proving my Earthian worth to myself fell flat. I could have succeeded in any endeavour. I had the brain skills, certainly, with determination and focus. I possessed charisma (and note that I write that in the past tense.)
Here’s the funny part: I offered myself in service of the Matrix’ three major powers: religion, politics and money. But because I explored all of them and not just one or two, I literally broke out of the labyrinth. I discovered their utter emptiness; the smoke and mirrors; the three wizards desperately trying to keep their illusions going. But such illusions only work on zombies. Break out and you can never again be captured by the siren song of their artificial life.
Break out and you can begin to sense the greater reality. You feel that inner freedom that makes things of earth indeed seem like the paltry items a prisoner is allowed to keep in his cell. You realize how much of a prison earth has become for man, and how with each passing day as man’s limits to growth are exceeded in rising numbers and dwindling resources, the prison tightens its security and adds to its bars and razor wire; to its walls’ height. How those who manage the prison increase the pressure upon the prisoners to distrust, fear and hate each other so they will rely upon the guards and wardens for their safety; so they will never realize that their only value to the prison system is how much they sweat, shed tears, bleed and die to serve, feed and entertain their oppressors.
I learned to look beyond the prison walls at a different world which I call the cosmos. I looked at life in infinite freedom and discovered the means to escape the prison and travel across space and time. I no longer needed a body to do this and realized the limitations of the Matrix programming. It could not follow me, in fact it was unaware of my “escapes.” All it saw was a body, either asleep or dutifully performing its slave’s work.
No longer a slave to divinities, politicians or bosses… or of emerging revolutionary forces which I knew if successful in their bid for power would only replace the existing oppressive structures with more of same old, same old. No longer lining up to the trunk of the snake oil salesman and his alcohol and cocaine-laced cure-alls. I taught myself the freedom to spend days alone in nature, observing changing seasons, the rise and ebb of waters, the movement and calls of birds, growing plants and the various fauna that inhabited them and lived from them. I saw earth as I was meant to see it without Matrix blinders of fear or need of conquest and destruction.
I’ve just past the seventieth year marker in an Earthian body. Seems like a long time in earth times, but a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Quite a dichotomy, living between worlds, having a physical presence tied to a tiny world and a mind presence ever seeking new knowledge, adventure and experiences in endless, nameless places and non-places.
Now I observe this tiny world seething with discord, it’s self-styled ruling intelligence without a clue how to proceed into its near and threatening future. I observe this intelligence plunging itself deeper into oblivious mindlessness, into planetary denial of its own reality. Unwilling to take responsibility for itself as a species it can only turn upon itself and its world, a mad dog chasing and eating its own tail and hating the tail for causing it pain as it is being chewed.
What can I say more: that I’m glad I’m no longer a prisoner of the programming? Certainly I am glad, for myself. How do I feel about the rest of this world; about its growing insanity and its denial of the doom it has created for itself? I’m a compassionate being and I experience the deepest of sorrow for this world. It’s not feelings I have, it’s awareness.
In a no-time and no-place, in the Nexus, is a world I call Altaria. My Teachers studied and taught there and I’ve got a “date” for my own entry into that world. When I am there I will be asked this very important question: what did you do, within your limited sphere of influence, to try and motivate your people to realize their peril and change their ways? And I will have an answer, and it will suffice. “I offered them the gift of compassion, but they turned it down. Ineffective, pie-in-the-sky they replied. So I offered them sorrow instead. They didn’t understand that either. They could not understand how experiencing sorrow leads to joy and creates empathy. I thought it was because these ideas are too simple. Then I realized they are much too complex and involved for the average Earthian mind, enslaved to Matrix programming, to grasp how a certain kind of powerlessness gives rise to the greatest of all power. Though they are inveterate gamblers they dared not gamble at this table. So I played alone and won.”
And by the way, for those who wonder at these thoughts, this is not fiction. This is my life. I’ll let you all know when I write fiction.
*ISSA: acronym for Intelligent, Sentient, Self Aware
“The coming years will prove increasingly cynical and cruel. People will definitely not slip into oblivion while hugging each other. The final stages in the life of humanity will be marked by the monstrous war of all against all: the amount of suffering will be maximal.” Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? http://journal-neo.org/2016/09/12/the-empire-of-mediocrity-and-the-end-of-the-world/
“Bring back normal, get our cable TV back no matter the cost, nuke whoever you have to, just give us our lives back!” You have to see the end of all this taking shape, I know you do. […] Mediocrity cannot rule, but in the 21st century it can obliterate us all. I leave you with the root of our collective demise, the reason Obama or Clinton or Trump types enthrall the masses so:
“Most of our pocket wisdom is conceived for the use of mediocre people, to discourage them from ambitious attempts, and generally console them in their mediocrity.” (Robert Louis Stevenson) (Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. http://journal-neo.org/2016/09/12/the-empire-of-mediocrity-and-the-end-of-the-world/ )
There is always a heavy demand for fresh mediocrity. In every generation the least cultivated taste has the largest appetite. (Paul Gauguin)
The soul is the weariest part of the body. ―Paul Bowles, The Sheltering Sky
We must forgive the video maker for his spelling mistakes…
Either there are changes waiting to be found or changes happening progressively as more people are becoming aware! Or, indeed, a blend of both. I just feel sorry for those who are waking up to this reality for the first time, knowing that something isn’t quite right!
For the last 3 to 4 years I have had this deep feeling of unease, I didn’t bother with my WordPress site, or YT channel or twitter account for a good 18 months. The strange thing is that every time I attempted to go on any of these sites a wave of lethargy came over me, and I just couldn’t bring myself around to write a blog, or make a video, or chat to people on twitter; I felt almost as if it didn’t matter anymore, to my shame. Then a short amount of weeks after I started back on social media, the “Mandela Effect” came to light. It took me by surprise and disturbed me immensely.
Since then, there has not been a day that I forget about these changes. It hits me sometimes like a cold slap on the face. What has happened, and is continuing to happen, is more significant than anything the Human Race has ever faced before, and I just know, call it a gut instinct, that there is something malevolent behind it all. Just my opinion, yet that is what I think…
We must all group together, that is the only way forward now, all of us…
Peace and Regards, DE5151
Is there another you reading this article at this exact moment in a parallel universe? Dr. Brian Greene, author of The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos, believes that this freakish quirk of nature may exist; and he discusses its amazing possibilities in this 3-minute TV interview.
According to IEET readers, what were the most stimulating stories of 2013? This month we’re answering that question by posting a countdown of the top 20 articles published this year on our blog (out of more than 600), based on how many total hits each one received.
The following piece was first published here on Nov 18, 2013, and is the #3 most viewed of the year.
A growing number of cosmologists agree with Greene that we are but one of many universes and at least one of these other worlds lies close to ours, maybe only a millimeter away. We can’t see this world, because it exists in a type of space different from the four dimensions of our everyday reality.
MIT’s Max Tegmark believes this multiverse model of ‘many universes’ is grounded in modern physics and will eventually be testable, predictive and disprovable. “This is not sci-fi,” he says, “its real science.”
As research at the CERN Large Hadron Colliderprogresses, scientists are talking increasingly of a “new physics” on the horizon, which promise to help researchers understand more of the unknowns about our universe. This new approach includes developing a better understanding of dark energy, a mystery force that some forward thinkers believe indicates that a ‘sister’ universe lurks in our neighborhood.
Strange happenings have been observed by cosmologists such as the Andromeda galaxy, 2.2 million light-years away speeding towards the Milky Way at 200,000 mph. This phenomenon makes sense logically if gravity leaking from an invisible universe were pulling the two galaxies together.
In another attempt to search for parallel worlds, NASAinstalled the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 at the ISS to record data that may prove the existence of other universes, some of which might even be made of anti-matter. Unraveling this cosmic mystery has attracted worldwide interest. The project draws support from most EU nations; plus Taiwan, China, Russia, and the U.S.
Could we ever visit another universe? In a recent PBS interview, Riddles of the Universe, USCcosmologist Clifford Johnson said he thought it OK to discuss this in the context of fiction (see FOX TV’s Fringe), but it’s also something that scientists can explore. Some suggest that the stuff we’re made of – matter and the forces of our gravity and magnetism – are the elements that glue us to this universe.
They don’t allow us to leave our 4-dimensions of moving back and forth, up and down, left to right; and sense of time. Another universe may exist close by, but in order for us to observe or communicate with it; we must first understand its different dimensions. We might envision them as “new kinds of sideways.”
Greene adds that some universes may be almost indistinguishable from ours; others may contain variations of all of us, where we exist but with different families, careers, and life stories. In still others, reality may be so radically different from ours as to be unrecognizable.
Experts predict that as the coming decades unwind, with intelligence advancing exponentially, this ‘over-the-top’ concept will one day become a proven fact. Imagine visiting another Earth where an alternate you is living a more rewarding life than yours, and you could trade places if you both agreed.
This begs the question, “What might happen if our parallel selves met; would we combine our differences to become better humans, or would we compete against one another?”
When might connecting to parallel universes be possible? With resolve and good fortune, some experts predict this incredible feat could be achieved by as early as 10 years; others less enthusiastic,believe the technologies necessary for this to happen could fall into place over the next 50-to-100 years. Stay tuned.
About the author:
Dick Pelletier was a weekly columnist who wrote about future science and technologies for numerous publications. He passed away on July 22, 2014.