Creating the New Earth Together

“It’s an unpleasant thing to bring people into the basic laws of physics.” —Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

GOD DID INDEED CREATE the Universe out of nothing.  In fact, we’re creating our worlds out of nothing all the time, that is according to quantum physics theory and biocentrism.  Atoms, the invisible, intangible and essential energetic building blocks of the visible, tangible, material world of creation are not “things.”  They are nothings from which all things are made.  It is, therefore, accurate to say that God created the Universe out of nothing.  What God did do, according to the Genesis story of Creation, was speak a command “Let there be light” and the Universe proceeded to unfold out of light. 

The Universe was created by light.  A more scientific way of describing creation would be “The Universe materialized when light shined into the darkness of the quantum world of all possibilities, collapsing the wave function of probabilities and, Voila! Electrons, protons, neutrons and photons materialized into particles, and what was before “without form and void” became the Earth and the fullness thereof, the world and all that exists in the world, including Man—Darwinism notwithstanding.  The Universe was created by Life and not the other way around.  This is biocentrism.  Mind-stretching truth and reality. 

So, let’s go down this path of biocentrism further and explore the magical world of quantum physics, what I would refer to as the Heaven God created before creating the Earth.  The Heaven of immaterial preform essences always comes before the creation of the material world of form. It’s just the way the Law of Creation works, and there’s no shortcut around it. We cannot create a heavenly world here on earth without the heaven God creates for us to keep and work out of. That’s what brought us down to this vale of tearful existence to begin with. The earth emerges out of the heaven, not the other way around. We can’t squeeze a heavenly experience out of an earthly mind-made world. Consider the Natural world of blue-green forests and snow capped mountains; of paradise islands and jungles of the wild virtually untouched by the human species.  All of it a heaven on earth.  But let’s leave the material world and explore the vibrational world of atoms and subatomic particles, the stuff out of which the material world is made.

QUANTUM PHYSICS 

I will probably get in over my head here, not being a physicist nor a scientists.  I am but a curious visitor to this mysterious realm of quarks and nanoparticles that somehow defy the laws of modern day Newtonian physics and the law of gravity as well; that ignore Einstein’s edict that the speed of light is constant at 186,282.4 miles per second, and that events in one place cannot influence events in another place simultaneously.  Yet we seek to move electronic data at that speed and faster. 

We live in an information age where the new competitive enterprise is the movement of information and data faster than anybody else in the field of computer science, an industry that has commandeered the ways in which we communicate—indeed, the very way we live and “move people to the food and the food to people,” as portrayed so graphically in Godfrey Reggio’s 1982 epic documentary film Koyaanisqatsi, a Native American term that means a life out of balance needing a new beginning. 

Presently we’ve developed 5G technology that is driving global growth and enabling industrial commerce, moving data across the globe using broad band low-frequency waves that are capable of moving large quantities of information faster than the speed of light.  Unfortunately, these low-frequency wave-lengths of energy are close enough to the low-frequency wave-lengths of radio communication that the airline industry here is the US is concerned about the scrambling effect 5G towers near airports will have on airplane instrumentation telling the pilot how close he is to the ground.  5G also messes with the vibratory frequencies of our bodies and our mental capacities, potentially, if not actually, scrambling our cellular light-signaling information delivery and hormonal communication systems. 

This morning I read a report from Dr. Robert Malone, one of the developers of the mRNA COVID vaccine who immediately warned against using it without first testing it for adverse reactions, telling how “human augmentation” is being developed to meld humans with machines for future industrial development and warfare advancement.  We know not, nor do we seem to care, how our modern technology is impacting the delicate fabric of organic life on the planet, ours and that of the other kingdoms of the Natural World.  We are out of control. Koyaanisqatsi !

My purpose in bringing all this modern technology into this consideration is to demonstrate how we are attempting to move about on the material plane of existence as fast and as effortlessly as atoms and their constituents move about on the other side of the veil separating and connecting the physical plane from and with the spiritual, or vibrational, plane in this multi-dimensional world where we live and have our being.  We also seem to be bent on building an electronic Tower of Babel powered by “Artificial Intelligence” that promises to make life on earth more efficient, enjoyable and even effortless.  It reminds me of the movie WALL-E depicting life in a space station where the earthlings salvaged from a devastated Earth are served up all of their needs and conveniences without getting up our of their comfortable recliners.  We’re not quite there . . . yet.  Movies such as this cast their ominous shadows on our tomorrows.  A more current movie on Netflix is “Don’t Look Up”—rather than casting a shadow is itself an allegorical shadow depicting present human hypnotic behavior—scary for sure. Onward now to this series’ third installment and the third principle of biocentrism: 

♦ ◊ ♦.”

Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles—indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

WHEN TOMORROW COMES BEFORE YESTERDAY

Nobel physicist Richard Feynman admonished us saying “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, “But how can it be like that?” because you will go “down the drain” into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.”

Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and its constituents, and their behavior, with stunning if probabilistic accuracy. It is used to design and build much of the technology that drives modern society, such as lasers and advanced computers. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens not only our essential and absolute notions of space and time but all Newtonian-type conceptions of order and secure prediction.

It is worthwhile to consider here the old maxim of Sherlock Holmes, that “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” In this chapter, we will sift through the evidence of quantum theory as deliberately as Holmes might without being thrown off the trail by the prejudices of three hundred years of science. The reason scientists go “down the drain into a blind alley,” is that they refuse to accept the immediate and obvious implications of the experiments. Biocentrism is the only humanly comprehensible explanation for how the world can be like that, and we are unlikely to shed any tears when we leave the conventional ways of thinking. As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg put it, “It’s an unpleasant thing to bring people into the basic laws of physics.”

In order to account for why space and time are relative to the observer, Einstein assigned tortuous mathematical properties to the changing warpages of space-time, an invisible, intangible entity that cannot be seen or touched. Although this was indeed successful in showing how objects move, especially in extreme conditions of strong gravity or fast motion, it resulted in many people assuming that space-time is an actual entity, like cheddar cheese, rather than a mathematical figment that serves the specific purpose of letting us calculate motion. Space-time, of course, was hardly the first time that mathematical tools have been confused with tangible reality: the square root of minus one and the symbol for infinity are just two of the many mathematically indispensable entities that exist only conceptually—neither has an analog in the physical universe.

This dichotomy between conceptual and physical reality continued with a vengeance with the advent of quantum mechanics. Despite the central role of the observer in this theory—extending it from space and time to the very properties of matter itself—some scientists still dismiss the observer as an inconvenience, a non-entity.

In the quantum world, even Einstein’s updated version of Newton’s clock—the solar system as predictable if complex timekeeper fails to work. The very concept that independent events can happen in separate non-linked locations—a cherished notion often called locality—fails to hold at the atomic level and below, and there’s increasing evidence it extends fully into the macroscopic as well. In Einstein’s theory, events in space-time can be measured in relation to each other, but quantum mechanics calls greater attention to the nature of measurement itself, one that threatens the very bedrock of objectivity.

When studying subatomic particles, the observer appears to alter and determine what is perceived. The presence and methodology of the experimenter is hopelessly entangled with whatever he is attempting to observe and what results he gets. An electron turns out to be both a particle and a wave, but how and, more importantly, where such a particle will be located remains dependent upon the very act of observation [and intention].

This was new indeed. Pre-quantum physicists, reasonably assuming an external, objective universe, expected to be able to determine the trajectory and position of individual particles with certainty—the way we do with planets. They assumed the behavior of particles would be completely predictable if everything was known at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy with which they could measure the physical properties of an object of any size, given adequate technology.

In addition to quantum uncertainty, another aspect of modern physics also strikes at the core of Einstein’s concept of discrete entities and space-time. Einstein held that the speed of light is constant and that events in one place cannot influence events in another place simultaneously. In the relativity theories, the speed of light has to be taken into account for information to travel from one particle to another. This has been demonstrated to be true for nearly a century, even when it comes to gravity spreading its influence. In a vacuum, 186,282.4 miles per second was the law. However, recent experiments have shown that this is not the case with every kind of information propagation.

Perhaps the true weirdness started in 1935 when physicists Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen dealt with the strange quantum curiosity of particle entanglement, in a paper so famous that the phenomenon is still often called an “EPR correlation.” The trio dismissed quantum theory’s prediction that a particle can somehow “know” what another one that is thoroughly separated in space is doing, and attributed any observations along such lines to some as-yet-unidentified local contamination rather than to what Einstein derisively called “spooky action at a distance.”

This was a great one-liner, right up there with the small handful of sayings the great physicist had popularized, such as “God does not play dice.” It was yet another jab at quantum theory, this time at its growing insistence that some things only existed as probabilities, not as actual objects in real locations. This phrase, “spooky action at a distance,” was repeated in physics classrooms for decades. It helped keep the true weirdnesses of quantum theory buried below the public consciousness. Given that experimental apparatuses were still relatively crude, who dared to say that Einstein was wrong?

But Einstein was wrong. In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell proposed an experiment that could show if separate particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances. First, it is necessary to create two bits of matter or light that share the same wave-function (recalling that even solid particles have an energy-­wave nature). With light, this is easily done by sending light into a special kind of crystal; two photons of light then emerge, each with half the energy (twice the wavelength) of the one that went in, so there is no violation of the conservation of energy. The same amount of total power goes out as went in.

Now, because quantum theory tells us that everything in nature has a particle nature and a wave nature, and that the object’s behavior exists only as probabilities, no small object actually assumes a particular place or motion until its wave-function collapses. What accomplishes this collapse? Messing with it in any way. Hitting it with a bit of light in order to “take its picture” would instantly do the job. But it became increasingly clear that any possible way the experimenter could take a look at the object would collapse the wave-function. At first, this look was assumed to be the need to, say, shoot a photon at an electron in order to measure where it is, and the realization that the resulting interaction between the two would naturally collapse the wave-function. In a sense, the experiment had been contaminated. But as more sophisticated experiments were devised, . . . it became obvious that mere knowledge in the experimenter’s mind is sufficient to cause the wave-function to collapse.¹  (Underscores added)

I find this most stimulating.  Just to know that our conscious presence in the Field of Life itself is as creators to creation just by thinking and feeling with intention is quickening as well as sobering.  We are the creators of our world, whether we are conscious participants or sleep walking through life.  We create.  That’s our essential nature.  And we are responsible for our creations.  As true stewards of our creations we stay with them from the beginning to the end of their useful existence.  Then we assist them in passing away.  We never abandon our creations.   

I will continue this series in my next post.  Until then,

Be love.  Be loved.

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com

¹CREDIT:  BIOCENTRISM—How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, by Robert Lanza, MD with astronomer Bob Berman.

Comments on: "Biocentrism: Behold, I Create . . . Something from Nothing" (2)

  1. […] WILL CONTINUE from where I left off in the previous post in this series on “Biocentrism — How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to […]

  2. […] of conveying the images of creation out of the heaven and into form on earth.  In the context of BIOCENTRISM — a subject I explored earlier in a series of posts, this one entitled “Behold I Create […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: