Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2012 > Comment on 2012 May 23 (2)
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
2012 May 23 (2)
Go to the end of this webpage:
Everything we perceive is actively and repeatedly being reconstructed inside our heads in an organized whirl of information. Read more:
In several previous entries I have mentioned a prediction by Seth that scientist will discover that matter really comes into being from consciousness. The last of these entries was 2012 May 12 (2) – John Wheeler about parapsychology and creation.
Here the predictions. The first one, from 1965:
“Not only that, it is simply a fact that your scientists will indeed discover, and no misty, magical superstition, that consciousness, of itself and because of its nature, forms physical matter.”
And now another from the year 1965:
“Why do you find the phrase solidified feeling outlandish? You both already understand that your plane is really composed of solidified thought. When your scientists get through with all their high fiddle-faddle they too will discover that this is the case, though woe to any one of them that dares breathe such a concept yet.”
Now today I found out that this has already happened, scientists have already discovered that consciousness forms physical matter.
This morning I read an article about death and that became my previous entry: 2012 May 23 – Does death exist?.
Now after I wrote that entry today, I went back to the source because there I had found something written by a scientist that made sense and wanted to see if I could find more interesting things there. In the previous months I had hardly found anything written by scientist and written by writers who write about scientific stuff that impressed me.
So my search was successful.
I found an article that had the heading The biocentric universe theory: Life creates time, space, and the cosmos itself.
So now I bring some quotes from that article:
Life and consciousness are the key to understanding the true nature of the universe.
Are space and time physical objects that would continue to exist even if living creatures were removed from the scene?
Figuring out the nature of the real world has obsessed scientists and philosophers for millennia. Three hundred years ago, the Irish empiricist George Berkeley contributed a particularly prescient observation: The only thing we can perceive are our perceptions. In other words, consciousness is the matrix upon which the cosmos is apprehended. Color, sound, temperature, and the like exist only as perceptions in our head, not as absolute essences. In the broadest sense, we cannot be sure of an outside universe at all.
For centuries, scientists regarded Berkeley’s argument as a philosophical sideshow and continued to build physical models based on the assumption of a separate universe “out there” into which we have each individually arrived. These models presume the existence of one essential reality that prevails with us or without us. Yet since the 1920s, quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite: Results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the famous two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through the slits, the particle behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities - including somehow passing through both holes at the same time.
Some of the greatest physicists have described these results as so confounding they are impossible to comprehend fully, beyond the reach of metaphor, visualization, and language itself. But there is another interpretation that makes them sensible. Instead of assuming a reality that predates life and even creates it, we propose a biocentric picture of reality. From this point of view, life - particularly consciousness - creates the universe, and the universe could not exist without us.
Quantum mechanics is the physicist’s most accurate model for describing the world of the atom. But it also makes some of the most persuasive arguments that conscious perception is integral to the workings of the universe. Quantum theory tells us that an unobserved small object (for instance, an electron or a photon - a particle of light) exists only in a blurry, unpredictable state, with no well-defined location or motion until the moment it is observed. This is Werner Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle. Physicists describe the phantom, not-yet-manifest condition as a wave function, a mathematical expression used to find the probability that a particle will appear in any given place. When a property of an electron suddenly switches from possibility to reality, some physicists say its wave function has collapsed.
What accomplishes this collapse? Messing with it. Hitting it with a bit of light in order to take its picture. Just looking at it does the job. Experiments suggest that mere knowledge in the experimenter’s mind is sufficient to collapse a wave function and convert possibility to reality. When particles are created as a pair - for instance, two electrons in a single atom that move or spin together - physicists call them entangled. Due to their intimate connection, entangled particles share a wave function. When we measure one particle and thus collapse its wave function, the other particle’s wave function instantaneously collapses too. If one photon is observed to have a vertical polarization (its waves all moving in one plane), the act of observation causes the other to instantly go from being an indefinite probability wave to an actual photon with the opposite, horizontal polarity - even if the two photons have since moved far from each other.
In 1997 University of Geneva physicist Nicolas Gisin sent two entangled photons zooming along optical fibers until they were seven miles apart. One photon then hit a two-way mirror where it had a choice: either bounce off or go through. Detectors recorded what it randomly did. But whatever action it took, its entangled twin always performed the complementary action. The communication between the two happened at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. It seems that quantum news travels instantaneously, limited by no external constraints - not even the speed of light. Since then, other researchers have duplicated and refined Gisin’s work. Today no one questions the immediate nature of this connectedness between bits of light or matter, or even entire clusters of atoms.
Before these experiments most physicists believed in an objective, independent universe. They still clung to the assumption that physical states exist in some absolute sense before they are measured.
All of this is now gone for keeps.
The strangeness of quantum reality is far from the only argument against the old model of reality. There is also the matter of the fine-tuning of the cosmos. Many fundamental traits, forces, and physical constants - like the charge of the electron or the strength of gravity - make it appear as if everything about the physical state of the universe were tailor-made for life. Some researchers call this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that” but rather “just right” for life.
The final option is biocentrism, which holds that the universe is created by life and not the other way around. This is an explanation for and extension of the participatory anthropic principle described by the physicist John Wheeler, a disciple of Einstein’s who coined the terms wormhole and black hole.
Even the most fundamental elements of physical reality, space and time, strongly support a biocentric basis for the cosmos.
According to biocentrism, time does not exist independently of the life that notices it. The reality of time has long been questioned by an odd alliance of philosophers and physicists. The former argue that the past exists only as ideas in the mind, which themselves are neuroelectrical events occurring strictly in the present moment. Physicists, for their part, note that all of their working models, from Isaac Newton’s laws through quantum mechanics, do not actually describe the nature of time. The real point is that no actual entity of time is needed, nor does it play a role in any of their equations. When they speak of time, they inevitably describe it in terms of change. But change is not the same thing as time.
Everything we perceive is actively and repeatedly being reconstructed inside our heads in an organized whirl of information.
There is a peculiar intangibility to space, as well. We cannot pick it up and bring it to the laboratory. Like time, space is neither physical nor fundamentally real in our view. Rather, it is a mode of interpretation and understanding. It is part of an animal’s mental software that molds sensations into multidimensional objects.
Quantum theory even casts doubt on the notion that distant objects are truly separated, since entangled particles can act in unison even if separated by the width of a galaxy.
In daily life, space and time are harmless illusions. A problem arises only because, by treating these as fundamental and independent things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. Most researchers still believe they can build from one side of nature, the physical, without the other side, the living. By inclination and training these scientists are obsessed with mathematical descriptions of the world.
Biocentrism should unlock the cages in which Western science has unwittingly confined itself. Allowing the observer into the equation should open new approaches to understanding cognition, from unraveling the nature of consciousness to developing thinking machines that experience the world the same way we do. Biocentrism should also provide stronger bases for solving problems associated with quantum physics and the Big Bang. Accepting space and time as forms of animal sense perception (that is, as biological), rather than as external physical objects, offers a new way of understanding everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for strange results in the two-slit experiment) to the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe. At a minimum, it should help halt such dead-end efforts as string theory.
Above all, biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago. Until we recognize the essential role of biology, our attempts to truly unify the universe will remain a train to nowhere.
All these quotes come from an article of the year 2009 and the article seems to be adapted from the book Biocentrism: How life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the universe. And the book was apparently also publishes 2009.
Now Seth’s predictions are from 1965, 44 years earlier.
So this book casts an interesting light on the predictions of Seth. The entire Seth material seems to become more relevant. And this again demonstrates that spiritual writings have always been on the right track und should be seen by scientists as the direction to go.
Now the content of the above quotes, especially seen in the light of the predictions coming from Seth, seem to fit nicely into the present situation in which the physicists find themselves. This year we had the news that the experiment IceCube did not bring the results they hoped for and expected,
2012 Apr 28 – Astrophysics: Where does the cosmic radiation come from? and
2012 May 02 – Cosmic radiation
and this new situation is probably at the moment digested by them and we will probably soon hear about some results of this transformation and we will have to see if things and theories like “The Sun’s energy-producing fusion reactions” are getting dismantled.
Last year we had much news about the Higgs boson and this year might bring another disappointment for physicists: 2012 May 18 – In a few months the search for the Higgs boson will be ended.
And all this might cause them to put old things away and turn to other ideas. So let us see what happens next.
But the Seth material seems to gain relevance and I want to list here webpages of this website which deal with it:
2012 Jan 25 (3) – The basic universe
2012 Jan 29 – Units of consciousness
2012 Jan 31 – How scientists should work
2012 Feb 02 – The nature and construction of matter
2012 Feb 06 – Evolution
2012 Feb 10 – Scientists and clerics
2012 Feb 14 – “Barren” planets
2012 Feb 17 – Difference of heavenly bodies
2012 Feb 18 – Creating physical matter on a subconscious basis
2012 Feb 23 – The times of the end
2012 Mar 04 – From spirit to matter.
But what is even more important is that the material coming to us via Bertha Dudde is gaining relevance because of all the questions that are following, like consciousness, where does it come from, who is conscious and why is he conscious or why are they, material things, conscious. What is this all about? Why are we here? Is this just a short test that may be lasts 70 or 80 or 90 years and is then over or is possible over tomorrow and is therefore a test where we don’t know how long it will last and what this test is all about? Is it maybe that it is our task to find out what the test is all about? And what is the background of all this – why the test? May be consciousness and intellect and even the heart were given to us to make use of them and to find out what the test is all about and then react according to the abilities given to us. Are we really these highly intelligent and genuine and all-knowing beings or are we just freaks, trying to impress others or thinking that the material world is real and trying to gain power over it and amass as much of the material stuff as possible?
So what we all should do, and that includes all the scientists, is to get into Bertha Dudde’s material and find out all about it and then act accordingly.
So the above mentioned article is quite refreshing – for a change – but the question still remains, why is the scientist who wrote it, while he is mentioning findings from the past, not mentioning the findings that directly relate to his subject and give explanations for everything. For example the people of the East call it Maya – in Hinduism, the material world, considered in reality to be an illusion - and Jesus calls it Mammon – Ye cannot serve God and mammon, or “all these things”.
So the writer of the article calls himself a scientist – someone who knows – but he actually does not know.
Back to: 2012 May 23 (2)
Go to the top of this webpage:
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
The web address of this webpage is: