Creating the New Earth Together

Posts tagged ‘BIOCENTRISM’

BIOCENTRISM: The Illusion of Segregation in a Unified Cosmos

IT IS SAID THAT FOOLS RUSH IN where angels fear to tread . . . and so it may well be.  The self-active mind foolishly speculates about reality.  The Christened mind walks gingerly but confidently upon this sacred ground with humility and intent to offer insight and blessing.  Emerson said it more poetically:

Here we find ourselves, suddenly, not in a critical speculation, but in a holy place, and should go very warily and reverently.  We stand before the secret of the world, there where Being passes into Appearance, and Unity into Variety.

We Heavenly Beings incarnate in these Human capacities and endeavor to integrate racially segregated variety back into a state of integrated wholeness and unity—albeit segregation in only a condition of consciousness.  All peoples of the planet make up One Human Race. This endeavor, therefore, is futile if exercised merely in the social order without addressing the issue of separateness in our consciousness, where we see the whole as separate parts.  For example, we think of our solar system as having a sun with planets orbiting it, each a separate entity; when in reality our solar system is one entity and functions as one whole undivided entity.  As the authors of BIOCENTRISM succinctly state it . . .

We “see” separations between objects only because we have been conditioned and trained, through language and convention, to draw boundaries. . . . We see only that for which we are looking.  

I recently returned to a book I had set aside some years ago—for reasons that have only now become apparent—entitled Race And The Cosmos, written by Afro-American author Barbara A. Holmes.  She writes:

I am suggesting that we view issues of race and liberation from the perspective of the cosmos . . . This is a reasonable choice, given that the universe is an integral aspect of any human endeavor, even when it is a taken-for-granted backdrop for our activities.  I am challenging all justice seekers to awaken to the vibrant and mysterious worlds of quantum physics and cosmology. . . .  All the narratives that frame reality have been unsettled by the Hubble telescope’s unblinking eye and strangely responsive but unseen quantum elements.  From cosmic and quantum realms we learn that we are connected to one another in unexpected ways.  Theoretical physics suggests that, even when separated, entities that have once been in contact will react to changes in the other.

I resonate with this author’s perspective.  How we view the Cosmos and our relationship to it and within it seems vital to our movement forward into a new way of living together in harmony on Earth.  In that context and rationale, Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman’s BIOCENTRISM has afforded me expansive insight into where Barbara Holmes is coming from in her timely book. 

First of all, “racism” is an illusion.  We do not see racism because it is “out there.”  Racism only appears to be “out there” because we continue to see it “out there,” projected by our race-conditioned consciousness.  We will continue to have racism in human society for as long as we continue to look for racism in human society.  As soon a we stop looking for it, and consequently seeing it, racism will vanish.  As soon as we look to find diversity in our unity and learn to appreciate it, the illusion of racism will cease being a dividing factor in our consciousness, and therefore in our world—and I speak here to my own state of race-conditioned consciousness as well. People behaving in a segregated fashion does not negate the reality of oneness.  If we do not believe this, then it’s upon us to prove it out in our living.  Make the change in consciousness, and the way we see our world will change instantly—along with our world. 

The power of observation is real and transformative. “Behold I create a new heaven and a new earth for the old heaven and old earth are passed away . . . and the former things shall no longer be remembered.”  I have lived in hopes of seeing this day dawn—and so it has. 

With that foreword, I will complete my review of chapter 11, as well as this series.  Continuing from my previous post, the authors conclude this section of their insightful book taking a final look at the nature of space and coming to the conclusion that all things in the Universe are truly connected, in more ways than we’ve imagined.

♦ ◊ ♦

ABANDONING SPACE TO FIND INFINITY

Einstein’s relativity is fully compatible with a much more flexible definition of space. Several threads in physics indeed imply that a rethinking of space is necessary to move forward: the persistent ambiguity of the observer in Quantum Theory (QT), the nonzero vacuum energy implied by cosmological observations, and the breakdown of general relativity on small scales, to name a few. To this we may add the unsettling fact that space as perceived by biological consciousness remains a domain apart, and remains one of the most poorly understood natural phenomena.

To those who assume Einstein’s development of special relativity necessitates the reality of external, independent “space” (and likewise assume the reality of an absolute separability of objects, what quantum theory calls locality, and rest the concept of space on this basis) we must emphasize once again that to Einstein himself, space is simply what we can measure using the solid objects of our experience. . . . As science becomes more unified, it is to be hoped that we can explain consciousness as well as idealized physical situations, following the current threads of quantum mechanics that have made it clear that the observer’s decisions are closely linked to the evolution of physical systems.

Although consciousness may eventually be understood well enough to be described by a theory of its own, its scaffolding is clearly part of the physical logic of nature, that is, the fundamental grand unified field. It is both acted on by the field (in perceiving external entities, experiencing the effects of acceleration and gravity, etc.) and acts on the field (by realizing quantum mechanical systems, constructing a coordinate system to describe light-based relationships, etc.).

Meanwhile, theorists of all stripes struggle to resolve the contradictions between quantum theories and general relativity. While few physicists doubt that a unified theory is attainable, it is clear that our classical conception of space-time is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Among other nuisances, in the modern view, objects and their fields have blurred together in what seems to be an eternal game of peek-a-boo. In the modern view according to quantum field theory, space has an energy content of its own and a structure that is very quantum mechanical in nature. Science is increasingly finding that the boundary between object and space is growing ever fuzzier.

SINCE SPACE IS ILLUSORY, WHERE IS THE UNIVERSE ?

Moreover, experiments in quantum entanglement since 1997 have called into question the very meaning of space and ongoing questions as to what these entangled-particle experiments mean. There are really only two choices. Either the first particle communicates its situation far faster than the speed of light, indeed, with infinite speed, and using a methodology that totally escapes even our most desperate guesses, or else there really is no separation between the pair at all, appearances to the contrary. They are in a real sense in contact, despite a universe of seemingly empty space standing between them. Thus, these experiments appear to add yet another layer to the scientific conclusion that space is illusory.

Cosmologists say that everything was in contact, and born together, at the Big Bang. So even employing conventional imagery, it may even make sense that everything is in some sense an entangled relative of every other, and in direct contact with everything else, despite the seeming emptiness between them.

What, then, is the true nature of this space? Empty? Seething with energy and therefore matter-equivalent? Real? Unreal? A uniquely active field? A field of Mind? Moreover, if one accepts that the external world occurs only in Mind, in consciousness, and that it’s the interior of one’s brain that’s cognized “out there” at this moment, then of course everything is connected with everything else.

A separate oddity is that during high-speed travel, especially near the speed of light, everything in the universe would seem to lie in the same place, unseparated and undifferentiated, directly ahead. This bizarre wrinkle comes from the effect of aberration. When we drive through a snowstorm, the flakes seem to come from in front of us, while the rear window hardly gets hit at all. The same thing happens with light. Our planet’s eighteen-miles-per-second motion around the sun causes stars to shift position by several seconds of arc from their actual locations. As we increase our velocity, this effect grows ever more dramatic until at just below light-speed, the entire contents of the cosmos appear to hover in a single blindingly bright ball, dead ahead. If one is looking out any other window, there appears nothing but a strange, absolute blackness.

The point here is that if some thing’s experiences alter radically depending on conditions, that thing is not fundamental. Light or electromagnetic energy are unvarying under all circumstances, as something that is intrinsic and innate to existence, to reality. By contrast, the fact that space can both seem to change its appearance through aberration, and actually shrink drastically at high speed, so that the entire universe is only a few steps from end to end, illustrates that it has no inherent, let alone external, structure. It is, rather, an experiential commodity that goes with the flow and mutates under varying circumstances.

The further relevance of all this to biocentrism is that if one removes space and time as actual entities rather than subjective, relative, and observer-created phenomena, it pulls the rug from under the notion that an external world exists within its own independent skeleton. Where is this external objective universe if it has neither time nor space?

We can, at this point, formulate seven principles:

First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would — by definition — have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

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.

Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatiotemporal logic of the self.

Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

Seventh Principle of Biocentrism: Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

♦ ◊ ♦

In his youth, Einstein believed that he could build from the physical side of nature without the living side simply with mathematics and physics. In his later years he concluded that “there is no free will” as the life-created and life-centered Universe is what it is and will continue to unfold as it pleases in accordance with natural law, human ignorance, interference and manipulation notwithstanding. Our only freedom is to choose between life’s way and “the highway.” In our arrogance, we have chosen the highway, to the destruction of life’s sustainable and supportive natural world. What absolute insanity.

Does it not make more sense to simply let Life build a natural world and provide for us the life-sustaining fruits of Mother Nature’s cornucopia?  And for us to return to tending the Garden while co-creating a domicile that is compatible and in harmony with the natural world?  We may even stop dying from diseases . . . and stop waging wars!

These things inspire me to write about the cosmic context of our presence on this planet. We are connected to this larger context, and within it to one another, and to extraterrestrial beings, in ways we are only now beginning to become aware as we evolve from our narrow earthly consciousness to planetary consciousness, and further on to galactic, and ultimately, cosmic consciousness.  There are galactic beings who are very much aware of and concerned about what we do here with energy, particularly nuclear energy—and I believe they are protecting us from ourselves, along with the Earth. This planet was created as a sacred place for the creation of living forms and it will not be allowed to be destroyed by nuclear war, tyrannical aggression notwithstanding.  Let’s not bring nuclear war to our world by harboring fear.  Let love radiate without concern for results—and the truth of Love is Oneness.  Fear not. 

I will continue to explore the nature of consciousness in my next series.  Until then,

Be love.  Be loved.

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com

Credits:  Graphic at the top is by Rose Meeker.

 

BIOCENTRISM: No Time to Lose

       The Atom by Live Science

“Time is a concept looking for a function.”

THE HUMAN MIND is a very beautiful capacity and extremely lucid when it’s rather thin substance is gathered together into a place of stillness and its lens-like essence focused on the moment, or the topic at hand, in humility and open-minded receptivity of what is coming now from Divine Intelligence for expression and implementation — as well as to what is coming from the heart where true understanding of the things of Spirit takes place.  A tranquil mind allows for clarity and a sharp focus of singular direction and purposeful action with unwavering resolve and determination toward truth. Under the dominion of Spirit, it channels pure genius.   

We have used our minds and  imaginations to create many imaginings that have no reality in fact. They are simply concepts, some of them old hand-me-downs and some we’ve created ourselves. Cases in point: time and space, both creations of the mind having no palpable existence, nor can they be measured.  How long, for instance, is the present moment ?  And how much space does it occupy? Time is a measurement of the clock, a convenient mechanism someone in the past invented for measuring forward movement — like the ball in a football game, in which time can be stopped or even moved backwards to accommodate the rules and events of the game.  Time is something we find very useful, and for which Spirit has limited use. if any, being present only in the Now. 

What is the distance between this moment and the next? Not even a millisecond — even though an Olympic medal has hung in the balance of a few hundredths of a second.  In reality, there is only this moment. The “next moment” doesn’t exist and never will.  There’s only now, and now is eternal. Even travelling at the speed of sound or light, we cannot escape the present moment.  We take time and space with us wherever we go and at whatever speed, because they only “exist” as concepts in our imagination and belong solely to us.

Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman elucidate further on this subject in chapter ten of their fascinating book BIOCENTRISM, a work of genius outside the box of conventional “thinking”— if we may call it such.  Conventional thinking is more often than not a rehashing of yesterday’s mental constructs for managing our daily lives.  That’s the default way of letting the past determine and set the pace for the ongoing creation of life’s journey, which excludes any real and critical thinking.  True thinking is the flow of a stream of fresh and truthful ideas through the mind from Source within.  I invite you to gird up your leisure mind and focus your listening as you read the following excerpts from Dr. Lanza’s book with intent to increase your understanding about the universe and your functional existence in it.  But more than that, get into the author’s  mind and try to see what he sees as he writes and attempts to articulate the infinite with finite words and ideas.  Here we go.   (All underscores added for emphasis)

♦ ◊ ♦

“From wild weird clime that lieth, sublime, Out of Space-Out of Time”

–Edgar Allan Poe, “Dreamland” (1845) 

NO TIME TO LOSE

Because quantum theory increasingly casts doubts about the existence of time as we know it, let’s head straight into this surprisingly ancient scientific issue. As irrelevant as it might first appear, the presence or absence of time is an important factor in any fundamental look into the nature of the cosmos.

According to biocentrism, our sense of the forward motion of time is really only the result of an unreflective participation in a world of infinite activities and outcomes that only seems to result in a smooth, continuous path.

At each moment, we are at the edge of a paradox known as “The Arrow,” first described twenty-five-hundred years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one location during any given instant of its flight. But if it is in only one place, it must momentarily be at rest. The arrow must then be present somewhere, at some specific location, at every moment of its trajectory. Logically, then, motion per se is not what is really occurring. Rather, it is a series of separate events. This may be a first indication that the forward motion of time — of which the movement of the arrow is an embodiment — is not a feature of the external world but a projection of something within us, as we tie together things we are observing. By this reasoning, time is not an absolute reality but a feature of our minds.

Much absurd theorizing goes on in this part of the chapter about the scientific opinions on the subject of entropy, the diminishing of structure over time, which all boils down to this defining paragraph: 

Such endless unanswerables and seeming absurdities come to a blissful end, however, when time’s nature is seen for what it is — a biocentric fabrication, a biologic creation that is solely a practical operating aid in the mental circuitry of some living organisms, to help with specific functioning activities.

To understand this, consider for a moment that you are watching a film of an archery tournament, with Zeno’s arrow paradox in mind. An archer shoots and the arrow flies. The camera follows the arrow’s trajectory from the archer’s bow toward the target. Suddenly, the projector stops on a single frame of a stilled arrow. You stare at the image of an arrow in mid-flight, something you obviously could not do at a real tournament. The pause in the film enables you to know the position of the arrow with great accuracy — it’s just beyond the grandstand, twenty feet above the ground. But you have lost all information about its momentum. It is going nowhere; its velocity is zero. Its path, its trajectory, is no longer known. It is uncertain.

To measure the position precisely, at any given instant, is to lock in on one static frame, to put the movie on “pause” so to speak.

Conversely, as soon as you observe momentum, you can’t isolate a frame — because momentum is the summation of many frames. You can’t know one and the other with complete accuracy. Sharpness in one parameter induces blurriness in the other. There is uncertainty as you home in, whether on motion or position.

At first it was assumed that such uncertainty in quantum theory practice was due to some technological insufficiency on the part of the experimenter or his instruments, some lack of sophistication in the methodology. But it soon became apparent that the uncertainty is actually built into the fabric of reality. We see only that for which we are looking.

Of course, all of this makes perfect sense from a biocentric perspective: time is the inner form of animal sense that animates events — the still frames — of the spatial world. The mind animates the world like the motor and gears of a projector. Each weaves a series of still pictures — a series of spatial states — into an order, into the “current” of life. Motion is created in our minds by running “film cells” together. Remember that everything you perceive — even this page — is actively, repeatedly, being reconstructed inside your head. It’s happening to you right now. Your eyes cannot see through the wall of the cranium; all experience including visual experience is an organized whirl of information in your brain. If your mind could stop its “motor” for a moment, you’d get a freeze frame, just as the movie projector isolated the arrow in one position with no momentum. In fact, time can be defined as the inner summation of spatial states; the same thing measured with our scientific instruments is called momentum. Space can be defined as position, as locked in a single frame. Thus, movement through space is an oxymoron.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has its root here: position (location in space) belongs to the outer world and momentum (which involves the temporal component that adds together still “film cells”) belongs to the inner world. By penetrating to the bottom of matter, scientists have reduced the universe to its most basic logic, and time is simply not a feature of the external spatial world. “Contemporary science,” said Heisenberg, “today more than at any previous time, has been forced by nature herself to pose again the old question of the possibility of comprehending reality by mental processes, and to answer it in a slightly different way.”

The metaphor of a strobe light might be helpful. Fast flashes of light isolate snapshots of rapidly moving things — like dancers in a disco. A dip, a split, a snap becomes a still pose. Motion is suspended. One still follows another still.  In quantum mechanics, “position” is like a strobe snapshot. Momentum is the life-created summation of many frames.

Spatial units are stagnant and there is no “stuff” between the units or frames. The weaving together of these frames occurs in the mind. San Francisco photographer Eadweard Muybridge may have been the first to have unconsciously imitated this process. Just before the advent of movies, Muybridge successfully captured motion on film. In the late 1870s, he placed twenty-four still cameras on a racetrack. As a horse galloped, it broke a series of strings, tripping the shutters of each successive camera. The horse’s gait was analyzed frame by frame as a series. The illusion of motion was the summation of the still frames.

Two and a half thousand’ years later, Zeno’s arrow paradox finally makes sense. The Eleatic School of philosophy, which Zeno brilliantly defended, was right. So was Werner Heisenberg when he said, “A path comes into existence only when you observe it.” There is neither time nor motion without life. Reality is not “there” with definite properties waiting to be discovered but actually comes into being depending upon the actions of the observer. . . .

On time and space travel, consider this:

. . . . Those that assume time to be an actual state of existence logically muse that time travel should be valid as well — and some have misused quantum theory to make this case. Very few theoreticians take seriously the possibility of time travel or of other temporal dimensions existing in parallel with ours. Aside from the violations of known physical law, there’s this little detail: if time travel were ever possible, so that people could journey into the past, then -­– where are they? We’ve never been faced with tales of unexplained people arriving from the future. . . .

[Only in movies like “Deja Vu” where Denzel Washington’s character travels via sophisticated technology four days back in time to save a woman who was about to be blown up, along with a lot of people, in a homespun terrorist attack.] 

. . . . We feel as if we live on the edge of time. That’s a psychologically comfortable place, really, because it means we are still among the living. On the edge of time, tomorrow hasn’t happened. Our future has not been played out. Most of our descendants haven’t yet been born. Everything to come is a big mystery, a vast void. Life stretches ahead of us. We’re out in front, strapped to the engine of the Time Train, which relentlessly travels forward into an unknown future. Everything behind us, so to speak, is the dining car, business class, the caboose, and miles of track we can’t retrace. Everything before this moment in time is part of the history of the universe. The vast majority of our ancestors, about whom we haven’t the foggiest idea, are dead and gone. Everything prior to this moment is the past, gone forever. But this subjective feeling of living on the forward edge of time is a persistent illusion, a trick of our attempts to create an intelligible organizational pattern for nature in which one calendar day follows upon another, that spring precedes summer, and that years pass. Time in a biocentric universe is not sequential — however much our habitual perceptions dictate that it is.

If time is truly flowing forward into the future, is it not extraordinary that we are here, alive, for a split instant, on the edge of all time? Imagine all the days and hours that have passed since the beginning of time. Now, stack time, like chairs, on top of each other, and seat yourself on the very top, or, if you prefer speed, strap yourself once again to the front of the Time Train.

Science has no real explanation for why we’re alive now, existing on the edge of time. According to the current physiocentric worldview, it’s just an accident, a one-in-a-gazillion chance that we are alive.

The persistent human perception of time almost certainly stems from the chronic act of thinking, the one-word-at-a-time thought process by which ideas and events are visualized and anticipated. In rare moments of clarity and mental emptiness, or when danger or novel experience forces a one-pointed focus upon one’s consciousness, time vanishes, replaced by an ineffably enjoyable feeling of freedom, or the Singular focus of escaping an immediate peril. Time is never cognized normally in such thought-less experiences: “I saw the whole accident unfolding in slow motion.”

In sum, from a biocentric point of view, time does not exist in the universe independent of life that notices it, and really doesn’t truly exist within the context of life either. But let’s return to Barbara’s point: growing children, aging, and feeling most poignantly that time exists when our loved ones die constitute the human perceptions of the passage and existence of time. Our babies turn into adults. We age. They age. We all grow old together. That to us is time. It belongs with us.

This brings us to the sixth principle:

Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

  We really can’t “lose any time” or “waste any time” then, can we.  I’ll continue with this series in my next post.  Until then,

Be love.  Be loved.   

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

A “Goldilocks’ Universe” Part 2 . . . . Created With Light

 

Apocalypse of light

“All things are one.”  —Heraclitus (540-480 BC)

THE SECOND HALF of the ninth chapter of BIOCENTRISM — How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, authored by globally respected scientist Robert Lanza, MD and renown astronomer Bob Berman, delves into the perspective of a likely pre-existent universe in an indeterminate state of formless, vibrationless wave of potential, possibility and probability — and the necessity, therefore, for a universe that accommodates and supports both life and consciousness . . . simply because of the need for an observer to collapse its wave-function and bring the universe out into particle-form reality. 

This perspective was dubbed “the Anthropic Principle,” a term that emerged in the 1960’s from papers written by Princeton physicist Robert Dicke and elaborated upon by Brandon Carter in 1974. The alternative is a billiard ball model that, by mere happenstance, produced a Michael Angelo and a Amadeus Mozart.  Based simply on such unlikely outcomes, intelligent design wins out over Darwin’s preposterous random selection, as well as religion’s inconceivable creation out of nothing scenarios.  

Starting from where I left off in the previous post . . . .

Carter explained that what we can expect to observe “must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.” Put another way, if gravity was a hair stronger or the Big Bang a sliver weaker, and therefore the universe’s lifespan significantly shorter, we couldn’t be here to think about it. Because we’re here, the universe has to be the way it is and therefore isn’t unlikely at all. Case closed.

By this reasoning, there’s no need for cosmological gratitude. Our seemingly fortuitous, suspiciously specific locale, temperature range, chemical and physical milieus are just what’s needed to produce life. If we’re here, then this is what we must find around us.

Such reasoning is now known as the “weak” version of the Anthropic Principle or WAP. The “strong” version, one that skirts the edges of philosophy even more closely but clearly supports biocentrism, says that the universe must have those properties that allow life to develop within it because it was obviously “designed” with the goal of generating and sustaining observers. But without biocentrism, the strong anthropic principle has no mechanism for explaining why the universe must have life-sustaining properties.

Going even further, the late physicist John Wheeler (1911-2008), who coined the term “black hole,” advocated what is now called the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP): observers are required to bring the universe into existence. Wheeler’s theory says that any pre-life Earth would have existed in an indeterminate state, like Schrodinger’s cat. Once an observer exists, the aspects of the universe under observation become forced to resolve into one state, a state that includes a seemingly pre-life Earth. This means that a pre-life universe can only exist retroactively after the fact of consciousness. (Because time is an illusion of consciousness, as we shall see shortly, this whole talk of before and after isn’t strictly correct but provides a way of visualizing things.)

If the universe is in a non-determined state until forced to resolve by an observer, and this non-determined state included the determination of the various fundamental constants [elements such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and helium, etc.], then the resolution would necessarily fall in such a way that allows for an observer, and therefore the constants would have to resolve in such a way as to allow life. Biocentrism therefore supports and builds upon John Wheeler’s conclusions about where quantum theory leads, and provides a solution to the anthropic problem that is unique and more reasonable than any alternative. . . .

. . . .  To be honest and present all views, however, it should be noted that some critics wonder whether the Weak Anthropic Principle is no more than a piece of circular reasoning or a facile way of squirming out of explaining the enormous peculiarities of the physical universe. Philosopher John Leslie, in his 1989 book Universes, says, “A man in front of a firing squad of one hundred riflemen is going to be pretty surprised if every bullet misses him. Sure he could say to himself, ‘Of course they all missed; that makes perfect sense, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to wonder why they all missed.’ But anyone in his or her right mind is going to want to know how such an unlikely event occurred.”

But biocentrism provides the explanation for why all the shots missed. If the universe is created by life, then no universe that didn’t allow for life could possibly exist.  This fits very neatly into quantum theory and John Wheeler’s participatory universe in which observers are required to bring the universe into existence. Because, if indeed there ever was such a time, the universe was in an undetermined probability state before the presence of observers (some probabilities — or most — not allowing for life), when observation began and the universe collapsed into a real state, it inevitably collapsed into a state that allowed for the observation that collapsed it. With biocentrism, the mystery of the Goldilocks universe goes away, and the critical role of life and consciousness in shaping the universe becomes clear.

So you either have an astonishingly improbable coincidence revolving around the indisputable fact that the cosmos could have any properties but happens to have exactly the right ones for life or else you have exactly what must be seen if indeed the cosmos is biocentric. Either way, the notion of a random billiard-ball cosmos that could have had any forces that boast any range of values, but instead has the weirdly specific ones needed for life, looks impossible enough to seem downright silly.

And if any of this seems too preposterous, just consider the alternative, which is what contemporary science asks us to believe: that the entire universe, exquisitely tailored for our existence, popped into existence out of absolute nothingness. Who in their right mind would accept such a thing?

Has anyone offered any credible suggestion for how, some 14 billion years ago, we suddenly got a hundred trillion times more than a trillion trillion trillion tons of matter from — zilch? Has anyone explained how dumb carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules could have, by combining accidentally, become sentient — aware! — and then utilized this sentience to acquire a taste for hot dogs and the blues?

How any possible natural random process could mix those molecules in a blender for a few billion years so that out would pop woodpeckers and George Clooney? Can anyone conceive of any edges to the cosmos? Infinity? Or how particles still spring out of nothingness? Or conceive of any of the many supposed extra dimensions that must exist everywhere in order for the cosmos to consist fundamentally of interlocking strings and loops? Or explain how ordinary elements can ever rearrange themselves so that they continue to acquire self-awareness and a loathing for macaroni salad? Or, again, how everyone of dozens of forces and constants are precisely fine-tuned for the existence of life?

Is it not obvious that science only pretends to explain the cosmos on its fundamental level?

By reminding us of its great successes at figuring out interim processes and the mechanics of things, and fashioning marvelous new devices out of raw materials, science gets away with patently ridiculous “explanations” for the nature of the cosmos as a whole. If only it hadn’t given us HDTV and the George Foreman grill, it wouldn’t have held our attention and respect long enough to pull the old three-card Monte when it comes to these largest issues.

Unless one awards points for familiarity and repetition, a consciousness-based universe scarcely seems far-fetched when compared with the alternatives.

We can now add another principle:

Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The very structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The universe is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

♦◊♦

SEEING THE UNIVERSE INTO BEING

This entire consideration around the theme of a life-centered and participatory universe takes me back to a line in the Creation Story as recorded in the Book of Genesis of the Old Testament Bible: “And God saw the light, that it was good.”  If one were so inclined, as I am, one may consider the possibility that this quantum phenomenon of wave-to-particle transformation has been operative since the Beginning.  The phrase “And God saw” is repeated several times in the Genesis  Creation story.  

Is this perhaps the key to how Elohim, the conclave of God Beings who ventured forth into the deep dark void of space to create a “Home among the stars,” created the world “out of nothing”– or no thing — but rather from out of the “void”– or perhaps the “darkness” that was “upon the face of the deep?”  Perhaps even a Quantum Source-Field of the unformed essences of all possibilities and probabilities?  Kind of makes one think twice and critically about what we were taught in our religious upbringing.  

For instance, what was the length of a “day” in Genesis?  According to scholarly biblical time-lines I’ve come across, a cosmic day in Genesis is 25,872 earth years.  This brings the total six days of Creation to 155,232 earth years — then God rested from His work for another cosmic day of 25,872 years.  It’s been surmised that we are living today in the last years — perhaps decades — of the 13th Day of Creation, some 336,336 years since the creation of light on Day One. 

[For my numerology friends, this resolves out to a 6 (3+3+6+3+3+6 = 24 = 6), the number for bringing forth or coming forth — perhaps the coming forth of angelic beings on Earth in an apocalypse of Light, a truly privileged historic time to be living on Earth.]

It all boils down to this one Eternal Moment, doesn’t it?  For, since time is just an idea in our minds, an aid for measuring forward movement through space, another illusionary concept, and the “past” exists only as coded memory engrams in our collective unconscious mind, everything that has happened since Man’s creation on the Sixth Day is happening NOW in human consciousness.  The planet has simply been turning on its axis giving us countless days and nights since the eternal NOW dawned in Eden.  In this light, let’s revisit the story in Genesis. 

ALL OF CREATION FLOWS OUT FROM LIGHT

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said Let there be light. And God saw the light that it was good.” 

What was the origin of the light?  The simplistic answer is “Well, God made it.” But how?  My conjecture is that a super nova exploded spewing electromagnetic energy along with star debris out into the cosmos, the raw material for creating solar systems and planets. “And God saw the light that it was good.” Another word for “good” is “complete.” Each day of creation came to a point of completion before the next creative cycle was initiated.  Then God separated the light from darkness, day from night. That completed the first day’s work. The operative word here is “saw,” indicating observation by the Creator Beings. 

In a second cosmic day the firmament of Heaven was created, separating the “waters above the Heaven from the waters below the Heaven.”  Water is the womb of living forms and the first of the Four Forces.  Our world was conceived in and brought forth out of water.

During a third cosmic day, the seas were created by the waters under the Heaven gathering into one place . . . and the dry land of Earth “appeared”— from out of the waters under the Heaven. The Heaven came before the Earth. That’s the Divine Order of Creation.

The Earth appeared — dropped down out of its pre-form wave state in the Heaven and into its particle state of physical form. And God “saw” the Earth that it was good, complete, and out of the Earth appeared grass and seed-bearing herbs and trees, and all living things, including the physical body of Man.  

All of the above emerged from its invisible pre-form wave state as God saw, observed, the light and all else that was created from light.  And that action of seeing collapsed the wave function of light and activated the particle function of light, therein making available the positively charged atoms and negative life essences by which our world was created.  Makes perfect sense to me. 

Any thoughts?  Until my next post — on the convenient illusion of space and time, 

Be love. Be loved. 

Anthony 

tpal70@gmail.com

  

BIOCENTRISM: A “Goldilocks’s Universe”

“Wherever the life is [the world] bursts into appearance around it.”     Ralph Waldo Emerson

♦ ◊ ♦

NOWHERE IS IT MORE OBVIOUS than here on planet Earth where we live, breathe oxygen and enjoy the beauty of Mother Nature’s array of colorful creations that we live in a perfectly balanced universe.  Any closer to the sun, our Star in the heavens, the heat would be unbearable. Any farther away, life forms would freeze and cease growing and multiplying, including our physical forms for incarnating here—which in themselves are miracles of Life’s creations. 

    Our Home among the stars

♦ ◊ ♦

“The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe”

We come to chapter nine of Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman’s enlightening book BIOCENTRISM — How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.  This is my favorite chapter of the entire book as it’s full of details about the universe and about our world as seen through the beautiful and clear lens of the authors’ minds — like where the oxygen we breathe comes from, and all the carbon that goes into building just about everything; and how the atom maintains its integrity and coherent unity. 

The title of this chapter is “GOLDILOCKS’S UNIVERSE.”  As you may recall the fairytale, Goldilocks came upon a cottage home belonging to a family of three bears, who were away at the time.  There on the table were three bowls of porridge, the first of which was too hot, the second too cold, and the third was just right. 

So is it where our home among the stars is set in the Cosmos: it’s just right for life to flourish and for Man to live and steward creation.  I invite you to come with me on a survey of the microcosmic ingredients of the macrocosmic world and renew your appreciation of the finer and unseen details of our world’s makeup, and that of the Universe where our world lives, that make it just right for life and consciousness. In fact, it has to be just right for life and consciousness for this “Participatory Universe” to exist at all. 

♦ ◊ ♦

The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains — from atoms to stars — was tailor-made just for us. Many are calling this revelation the “Goldilocks Principle,” because the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that,” but rather “just right” for life. Others are invoking the principle of “Intelligent Design,” because they believe it’s no accident the cosmos is so ideally suited for us, although the latter label is a Pandora’s box that opens up all manner of arguments for the Bible, and other topics that are irrelevant here, or worse. By any name, the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and beyond.

In fact, we are currently in the midst of a great debate in the United States about some of these observations. Most of us probably followed the recent trials over whether intelligent design can be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school biology classes.  Proponents claim Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly that — a theory — and cannot fully explain the origin of all life, which naturally it never claims to do. Indeed, they believe the universe itself is the product of an intelligent force, which most people would simply call God. On the other side are the vast majority of scientists, who believe that natural selection may have a few gaps, but for all intents and purposes is a scientific fact. They and other critics charge that intelligent design is a transparent repackaging of the biblical view of creation and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

It would be nice if the debate changed from the contentious one about exchanging evolution for religion, and switched to the more productive tack of asking whether science can explain why the universe appears to be built for life. Of course, the fact that the cosmos seems exactly balanced and designed for life is just an inescapable scientific observation—not an explanation for why.

At the moment, there are only three explanations for this mystery. One is to say, “God did that,” which explains nothing even if it is true. The second is to invoke the Anthropic Principle’s reasoning, several versions of which strongly support biocentrism, which we shall now examine. The third option is biocentrism pure and simple, nothing else needed. No matter which logic one adopts, one has to come to terms with the fact that we are living in a very peculiar cosmos. 

By the late sixties, it had become clear that if the Big Bang had been just one part in a million more powerful, the cosmos would have blown outward too fast to allow stars and worlds to form. Result: no us. Even more coincidentally, the universe’s four forces and all of its constants are just perfectly set up for atomic interactions, the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water, and life. Tweak any of them and you never existed.

The authors provide a chart listing 32 “constants” and their modern values from the CODATA 1998 recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the United States, along with their mostly Greek symbols — interesting but not necessary for inclusion here.  Most of the elements I’ve never heard of, such as Bohr Magneton, Boltzmann’s Constant, Deuteron Mass, Fine Structure Constant, and Hartree Energy.  The more familiar ones are Atomic Mass Unit, Electric Constant, Faraday Constant, Magnetic Constant, Planck Constant (Length, Mass and Time), and Proton Mass.  I had no idea that the Universe was made up of so many “constants”—and that scientists had discovered, isolated and gave them values, names and symbols.  All this to show how intricately balanced and stable the atomic fabric of the universe is. 

GOLDILOCKS’S UNIVERSE    

Such life-friendly values of physics are built into the universe like the cotton and linen fibers woven into our currency. The gravitational constant is perhaps the most famous, but the fine structure constant is just as critical for life. Called alpha, if it were just 1.1 times or more of its present value, fusion would no longer occur in stars. The fine-structure constant gets so much scrutiny because the Big Bang created almost pure hydrogen and helium and almost nothing else. Life needs oxygen and carbon (water alone requires oxygen) but this by itself is not so great a problem because oxygen is created in the cores of stars as an eventual product in nuclear fusion.

Carbon is another story.  So where did the carbon in our bodies come from? The answer was found a half-century ago, and, of course, involves those factories where all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are manufactured — in the centers of suns. When heavier stars later explode into supernovae, this material is released into their environments, where they are taken up, along with nebulous clouds of interstellar hydrogen, into the stuff that composes the next generation of stars and planets. When this happens in a newly formed generation of stars, these further enrich themselves with an even higher percentage of heavier elements, or metals, and the more massive of these eventually explode. The process repeats. In our own neck of the cosmic woods, our sun is a third-generation star, and its surrounding planets, including all materials comprising the living organisms on Earth, are composed of this nicely enriched, third-generation, complex-material inventory. 

For carbon in particular, the key to its existence lies in an odd quirk within the nuclear fusion process itself, the reactions that make the Sun and stars shine. Now, the most common nuclear reaction happens when two extremely fast-moving atomic nuclei or protons collide and fuse to form a heavier element that is usually helium, but can be even heavier, especially as the star ages. Carbon should not be capable of being manufactured by this process because all the intermediate steps from helium to carbon involve highly unstable nuclei. The only way for its creation would be for three helium nuclei to collide at the same time. But the likelihood of three helium nuclei colliding at the identical microsecond, even in the frenzied interiors of stars, are minuscule. It was Fred Hoyle — not of the card rules fame, but the one who championed the steady state theory of an eternal universe until that grand idea’s sad demise in the 1960s — who correctly figured out that something unusual and amazing must be at play in the interior of stars that could vastly increase the odds of this rare three-way collision, and give the universe the abundant carbon found in every living creature. The trick here was a kind of “resonance,” where disparate effects can come together to form something unexpected, the way the wind resonated with the structure of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge more than six decades ago, causing it to sway violently and collapse. Bingo: turns out, carbon has a resonant state at just the correct energy to let stars create it in significant quantities. The carbon resonance, in turn, directly depends on the value of the strong force, which is what glues together everything in each atomic nucleus out to the farthest villages of space-time.

The strong force is still somewhat mysterious, yet is critical to the universe we know. Its influence only extends within the confines of an atom. Indeed, its strength falls off so quickly it’s already anemic at the edges of large atoms. This is why giant atoms such as uranium are so unstable. The outermost protons and neutrons in their nuclei lie at the fringes of the clump, where the strong force retains only a fragile hold, so occasionally one does overcome the otherwise iron-like grip of the strong force and falls off, changing the atom into something else.

If the strong force and gravity are so amazingly tweaked, we can’t ignore the electromagnetic force that holds sway in the electrical and magnetic connections found in all atoms. Discussing it, the great theoretical physicist Richard Feynman said in his book The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton University Press, 1985): “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to π or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.’ We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

It amounts to 1/137 when the units are filled in, and what it signifies is a constant of electromagnetism, another of the four fundamental forces, that helps facilitate the existence of atoms and allows the entire visible universe to exist. Any small change in its value and none of us are here. 

Such factual oddities powerfully influence modern cosmological thinking. After all, mustn’t cosmologists’ theories plausibly explain why we live in such a highly unlikely reality?

“Not at all,” said Princeton physicist Robert Dicke in papers written in the sixties and elaborated upon by Brandon Carter in 1974. This perspective was dubbed “the Anthropic Principle.” Carter explained that what we can expect to observe “must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.” Put another way, if gravity was a hair stronger or the Big Bang a sliver weaker, and therefore the universe’s lifespan significantly shorter, we couldn’t be here to think about it. Because we’re here, the universe has to be the way it is and therefore isn’t unlikely at all. Case closed.

By this reasoning, there’s no need for cosmological gratitude. Our seemingly fortuitous, suspiciously specific locale, temperature range, chemical and physical milieus are just what’s needed to produce life. If we’re here, then this is what we must find around us.

♦ ◊ ♦

LIFE’S ECONOMY

This “strong force” and electromagnetic gravitational pull at the nucleic core of the atom alludes to the invisible power and control of the Life Force, the Creative Power that holds the Universe together.  This Life — which has eluded scientists, who live to hopefully understand it in their day — is a subtle but irresistibly attractive magnetic Force.  Call it Spirit, or God, or the Supreme Being — by any name we may give to this all-powerful Creating Force, Life wastes nothing as it assembles and dissembles forms.  That which holds together at the core of the atom partakes of creation at that level and ascends to the next level for higher and greater creative purpose to fulfill.  What doesn’t or can’t adhere to the magnetic force at the nucleus falls away to take part in the Creating Process at a lower level. Nothing is lost or destroyed, only the structured state changes form in the ongoing processes of transformation, transmutation and ascension.  All things return to their Origin in the One. I will complete this episode in my next post.  Until then,

Be love. Be loved. 

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com

 

BIOCENTRISM: In a Participatory Universe, A Watched Pot Doesn’t Boil

“Et les étoiles d’or, légions infinies,
A voix haute, à voix basse, avec mille harmonies”  (Victor Hugo)

   ♦ ◊ ♦  

Ecstasy,  by Victor Hugo

I was alone beside the sea, one starry night. With not a single wave or sail in sight.  Past the world’s limits stretched my eye, And the forests and the mountains, with nature Seemed united in questioning, in vast yet mumbled sound, the billows of the ocean, and the splendor of the sky.

And the infinite legions of golden stars, had voices loud and deep, and harmonies over a thousand bars.  They replied, tipping low their radiant crowns of fame And the blue waters, which none could govern or arrest, Replied, tipping low the foam upon their crest: ‘The Lord, our great Creator! His glory we proclaim!’

♦ ◊ ♦ 

AS AN ENGLISH LITERATURE STUDENT, I loved poetry that took me to the heavens. I wrote my first and only sonnet about “A myriad of worlds and worlds of heavenly dust, In splendor clad with awe-inspiring grace.”  We had to memorize this poem by Victor Hugo, in French, and all I can recall today is the caption under the picture above.  I found a translation of this first line of the second stanza on Google search. I just had to share this fond memory from seminary days. 

 There is nothing more demonstrative of the magnificent perfection of God’s Creation than the Universe of stars and galaxies. The only thing that surpasses it in wonder is the capacity we have to encompass a living image of it in our consciousness . . . and the miracle of eyesight that brings it all into our brains, where alone we can know it as being real. The Universe is specifically designed and balanced to support life and consciousness. 

The word Universe itself means to turn together as one.  The Universe is not many separate things.  It is one Creation whose sole purpose is to provide a morphic field and a material platform for Life to abound and bring forth its vast array of living forms—all of which spring forth from out of a microcosmic quantum world of energy waves and light frequencies that pop out transformed into the particles that make up the vast Cosmos and the macrocosmic world in which we live.  I stand in awe before the God of Creation, whose “Universe of stars is but a cloak to Thee,” to borrow a line from a friend’s powerful baritone solo “How shall we give Thee glory?”  How, indeed?

♦ ◊ ♦ 

Moving on in this series, we come to the eighth chapter of Robert Lanza and Bob Berman’s fascinating book BIOCENTRISM — How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.  Having read it many times over, I still ponder over the experiments that prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the physical world is observer-dependent for its existence.  Without the presence of consciousness and life, the Universe itself would not exist, for it is Life via Consciousness that creates the Universe and not the other way around, Darwinism notwithstanding.  This is the essence of Biocentrism.  I will share a few excerpts from this chapter for your pleasurable reading . . . and mental stretching.  (All underscores were added for emphasis)

THIS “PARTICIPATORY UNIVERSE” 

Quantum theory has unfortunately become a catch-all phrase for trying to prove various kinds of New Age nonsense. It’s unlikely that the authors of the many books making wacky claims of time travel or mind control, and who use quantum theory as “proof” have the slightest knowledge of physics or could explain even the rudiments of quantum theory. The popular 2004 film, What the Bleep Do We Know? is a good case in point. The movie starts out claiming quantum theory has revolutionized our thinking—which is true enough—but then, without explanation or elaboration, goes on to say that it proves people can travel into the past or “choose which reality you want.”

Quantum theory says no such thing. Quantum theory deals with probabilities, and the likely places particles may appear, and likely actions they will take. And while, as we shall see, bits of light and matter do indeed change behavior depending on whether they are being observed, and measured particles do indeed amazingly appear to influence the past behavior of other particles, this does not in any way mean that humans can travel into their past or influence their own history.

Given the widespread generic use of the term quantum theory, plus the paradigm-changing tenets of biocentrism, using quantum theory as evidence might raise eyebrows among the skeptical. For this reason, it’s important that readers have some genuine understanding of quantum theory’s actual experiments—and can grasp the real results rather than the preposterous claims so often associated with it. For those with a little patience, this chapter can provide a life-altering understanding of the latest version of one of the most famous and amazing experiments in the history of physics.

I will not attempt to detail the actual experiments, which include the famous “double-slit” experiment that altered forever the scientific view of light—and everything else.  I will simply relate the eye-opening results and discoveries of these experiments.  Basically, the many scientists who performed the varied and progressively complex experiments over three-quarters of a century all came to the same history-altering conclusions, which I will share in excerpts.  But first, it’s interesting how this all got started.

It all really started early in the twentieth century when physicists were still struggling with a very old question—whether light is made of particles called photons or whether instead they are waves of energy. Isaac Newton believed it was made of particles. But by the late nineteenth century, waves seemed more reasonable. In those early days, some physicists presciently and correctly thought that even solid objects might have a wave nature as well.

The final conclusion of the experiments is that light is both wave and particle.  Waves, like those produced by two pebbles tossed upon the calm surface of a pond at the same time, meet each other and produce places of higher and lower crests. Some waves reinforce each other or, if one’s crest meets another’s trough, they cancel out at that spot.  These were called “interference patterns” in the experiments. This was one way the wave function of light was determined.  The second way was how the beam of light passed through both slots in the barrier board, unlike particles that passed through one or the other slit but not both.

So this early-twentieth-century result of an interference pattern, which can only be caused by waves, showed physicists that light is a wave or at least acts that way when this experiment is performed. The fascinating thing is that when solid physical bodies like electrons were used, they got exactly the same result. Solid particles have a wave nature too! So, right from the get-go, the double-slit experiment yielded amazing information about the nature of reality. Solid objects have a wave nature!

Now, for a look at the graphic details of the experiments, you’ll have to obtain a copy of the book and read how the complex experiments were performed, as I myself am still having a challenge following the details and connecting all the dots—and the graphics are simply too many for a blog this size.  The “weirdness” of the observations and conclusions did indeed entertain me and stretch my mental capacity.  The wave-and-particle nature of light is fascinating enough.  

Unfortunately, or fortunately, this was just the appetizer. Few realized that true strangeness was only beginning. 

The first oddity happens when just one photon or electron is allowed to fly through the apparatus at a time. After enough have gone through and been individually detected, this same interference pattern emerges. But how can this be? With what is each of those electrons or photons interfering? How can we get an interference pattern when there’s only one indivisible object in there at a time?  Somehow, these individual photons add up to an interference pattern! 

There has never been a truly satisfactory answer for this. Wild ideas keep emerging. Could there be other electrons or photons next door” in a parallel universe, from another experimenter doing the same thing? Could their electrons be interfering with ours? That’s so far-fetched that few believe it. 

The usual interpretation of why we see an interference pattern is that photons or electrons have two choices when they encounter the double slit. They do not actually exist as real entities in real places until they are observed, and they aren’t observed until they hit the final detection barrier. So when they reach the slits, they exercise their probabilistic freedom of taking both choices. Even though actual electrons or photons are indivisible, and never split themselves under any conditions whatsoever, their existence as probability waves are another story. Thus, what go “through the slit” are not actual entities but just probabilities. The probability waves of the individual photons interfere with themselves!  When enough have gone through, we see the overall interference pattern as all probabilities congeal into actual entities making impacts and being observed—as waves.  

Sure it’s weird, but this, apparently, is how reality works. And this is just the very beginning of quantum weirdness. Quantum theory, as we mentioned in the last chapter, has a principle called complementarity, which says that we can observe objects to be one thing or another—or have one position or property or another—but never both. It depends on what one is looking for and what measuring equipment is used. . . .

It turns out that the mere act of measurement, of learning the path of each photon, destroyed the photon’s freedom to remain blurry and undefined and take both paths until it reached the barriers. Its “wave-function” must have collapsed at our measuring device, . . . as it instantly “chose” to become a particle and go through one slit or the other. Its wave nature was lost as soon as it lost its blurry probabilistic not-quite-real state. But why should the photon have chosen to collapse its wave-function? How did it know that we, the observer, could learn which slit it went through? . . . .  We’re back to quantum theory’s complementarity—that you can measure and learn just one of a pair of characteristics but never both at the same time. If you fully learn about one, you will know nothing about the other.

 QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT OF TWIN PARTICLES

Okay, let’s try something else.  In nature, as we saw in the last chapter, there are entangled particles or bits of light (or matter) that were born together and therefore share a wave-function according to quantum theory. They can fly apart—even across the width of the galaxy—and yet they still retain this connection, this knowledge of each other. If one is meddled with in any way so that it loses its “anything’s possible” nature and has to decide instantly to materialize with, say, a vertical polarization, its twin will then instantaneously materialize too, and with a horizontal polarity. If one becomes an electron with an up spin, the twin will too, but with a down spin. They’re eternally linked in a complementary way.

After more, and more complex, experiments with this quantum entanglement of twin particles, their conclusions were: 

It’s our knowledge alone with which the photons or electrons seem concerned. This alone influences their actions . . . .  Okay, this is bizarre. Yet these results happen every time, without fail. They’re telling us that an observer determines physical behavior of ‘external’ objects. . . .  It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge or lack of it is the only thing that determines how these bits of light or matter behave.

It forces us, too, to wonder about space and time. Can either be real if the twins act on information before it happens, and across distances instantaneously as if there is no separation between them? 

Again and again, observations have consistently confirmed the observer-dependent effects of quantum theory. In the past decade, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have carried out an experiment that, in the quantum world, is equivalent to demonstrating that a watched pot doesn’t boil. “It seems,” said Peter Coveney, a researcher there, “that the act of looking at an atom prevents it from changing.” (Theoretically, if a nuclear bomb were watched intently enough, it would not explode, that is, if you could keep checking its atoms every million trillionth of a second. This is yet another experiment that supports the theory that the structure of the physical world, and of small units of matter and energy in particular, are influenced by human observation.) . . . .  In the last couple of decades, quantum theorists have shown, in principle, that an atom cannot change its energy state as long as it is being continuously observed.

Of course, experiments were conducted to prove this principle true, which led to this conclusion: 

However, when the researchers kept checking the atoms every four milliseconds with a brief pulse of light from a laser, the atoms never made it to the higher energy state, despite the force driving them toward it. It would seem that the process of measurement gives the atoms “a little nudge,” forcing them back down to the lower energy state—in effect, resetting the system to zero. This behavior has no analog in the classical world of everyday sense awareness and is apparently a function of observation. . . .

. . . . Eugene Wigner, one of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists, stated that it is “not possible to formulate the laws of [physics] in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness [of the observer].” So when quantum theory implies that consciousness must exist, it tacitly shows that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality, and that only an act of observation can confer shape and form to reality—from a dandelion in a meadow to sun, wind, and rain.

And so, a fourth principle of Biocentrism:  Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

♦ ◊ ♦

There are many implications in what I’ve just shared.  The one that comes up for me is based on the Creation story in Genesis that tells how we are each made in the image and likeness of our Creator, all sharing the same wave-function of Divine Being.  We may not share the same vibration as humans, but as beings we are each and all together vibrating at the same frequency of Love.  That makes us entangled partners in the quantum realm of Spirit, in the Heaven of this Earth.  We share an inseparable bond, and what I do impacts everyone else.  So, take care.  Until my next post,

Be love.  Be loved. 

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com      

BIOCENTRICITY: Setting the Ordinances of Heaven in the Earth

As Above So Below

“Let Love Command. Let wonders form. Let heaven’s beauty shine.”

I WILL CONTINUE from where I left off in the previous post in this series on “BiocentrismHow Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.”  I am sharing excerpts from Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman’s consciousness-expanding book by the same title and subtitle.  Dr. Lanza, a “genius” and “renegade thinker,” according to U.S. News & World Report, who likened him to Einstein, is one of the world’s most respected scientists; and Berman is lauded as one of the best-known astronomers in the world.  I’ll dive right into this post with these excerpts:

♦ ◊ ♦

ENTANGLED PARTICLES OR “TWINS”

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.

That was freaky, but it got worse. When entangled particles are created, the pair share a wave-function. When one member’s wave­function collapses, so will the other’s — even if they are separated by the width of the universe. This means that if one particle is observed to have an “up spin,” the other instantly goes from being a mere probability wave to an actual particle with the opposite spin. They are intimately linked, and in a way that acts as if there’s no space between them, and no time influencing their behavior.

Experiments from 1997 to 2007 have shown that this is indeed the case, as if tiny objects created together are endowed with a kind of ESP. If a particle is observed to make a random choice to go one way instead of another, its twin will always exhibit the same behavior (actually the complementary action) at the same moment—even if the pair are widely separated. . . .

 Although predicted by quantum mechanics, the results continue to astonish even the very physicists doing the experiments. It substantiates the startling theory that an entangled twin should instantly echo the action or state of the other, even if separated by any distance whatsoever, no matter how great . . . . [the momentous adjective here is instantly.]

In a paper published in Nature by a team of researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology led by Dr. David Wineland, entangled pairs of beryllium ions and a high-efficiency detector proved that, yes, each really does simultaneously echo the actions of its twin.

Few believe that some new, unknown force or interaction is being transmitted with zero travel time from one particle to its twin. Rather, Wineland told one of the authors, “There is some spooky action at a distance.” Of course, he knew that this is no explanation at all.

AS IN HEAVEN SO ON EARTH

THERE ARE PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS in this phenomenon of “entangled” or “twin” particles, one being that we are not on this earth alone.  We each have a twin in a parallel universe, only not of the hypothesized multiple “parallel universes.”  The parallel universe I’m referring to is a heavenly universe, which in reality is half of a duality rather than a parallel.  Heaven-and-Earth is a duality. That twin in the heavenly half is who I really am. The other twin here in this earthly half is my human capacity for incarnating on this planet.  It even bears a name, as my twin does.  My ancestral name is Palumbo, which in Italian means dove or messenger pigeon (the u was later closed to form an o).  I am a messenger, as we all are: messengers from Heaven to bring the Light of Love and Truth to Earth to create Life.  In our true identity, we are emissaries of Heaven’s Light.  We dwell in the heavenly realm of Light as angels and we each have our analogous twin in the earth.  

You may see where I am going with this analogous dichotomy of seeming contradictory characteristics, the one being of a spiritual nature and the other being of a physical nature.  They are rather more complementary than contradictory, a true duality: Human Being. The One manifests the other, and the other was manifested to reveal the qualities and virtues of the One.

Now the spiritual twin is by nature always attuned to the frequency of love, is love, and moves about in the invisible realm of Heaven in harmony with all other heavenly beings.  When the earthly physical twin is attuned to the same frequency of love, it mirrors perfectly the qualities and movements of its heavenly twin.  They behave as one, which they are. When two substances vibrate at the same frequency, by resonance they fuse together as one.

Continuing in this chapter:

THE INEFFABLE WORLD OF “QUANTUM WEIRDNESS”

Dubbed quantum weirdness, this wave-particle duality has befuddled scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists have described it as impossible to intuit, impossible to formulate into words, impossible to visualize, and as invalidating common sense and ordinary perception. Science has essentially conceded that quantum physics is incomprehensible outside of complex mathematics. How can quantum physics be so impervious to metaphor, visualization, and language?

Amazingly, if we accept a life-created reality at face value, it all becomes simple and straightforward to understand. The key question is “waves of what?” Back in 1926, German physicist Max Born demonstrated that quantum waves are waves of probability, not waves of material, as his colleague Schrodinger had theorized. They are statistical predictions. Thus, a wave of probability is nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, the wave is not there! It’s intangible. As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

Note that we are talking about discrete objects like photons or electrons, rather than collections of myriad objects, such as, say, a train. Obviously, we can get a schedule and arrive to pick up a friend at a station and be fairly confident that his train actually existed during our absence, even if we did not personally observe it. (One reason for this is that as the considered object gets bigger, its wavelength gets smaller. Once we get into the macroscopic realm, the waves are too close together to be noticed or measured. They are still there, however.)

With small discrete particles, however, if they are not being observed, they cannot be thought of as having any real existence –­ either duration or a position in space. Until the mind sets the scaffolding of an object in place, until it actually lays down the threads (somewhere in the haze of probabilities that represent the object’s range of possible values), it cannot be thought of as being either here or there. Thus, quantum waves merely define the potential location a particle can occupy. When a scientist observes a particle, it will be found within the statistical probability for that event to occur. That’s what the wave defines. A wave of probability isn’t an event or a phenomenon, it is a description of the likelihood of an event or phenomenon occurring. Nothing happens until the event is actually observed.

This chapter ends on a note of promise and optimism:

At present, the implications of these experiments are conveniently downplayed in the public mind because, until recently, quantum behavior was limited to the microscopic world. However, this has no basis in reason, and more importantly, it is starting to be challenged in laboratories around the world. New experiments carried out with huge molecules called buckyballs show that quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in. In 2005, KHC03 crystals exhibited quantum entanglement ridges one-half inch high—visible signs of behavior nudging into everyday levels of discernment. In fact, an exciting new experiment has just been proposed (so-called scaled-up superposition) that would furnish the most powerful evidence to date that the biocentric view of the world is correct at the level of living organisms.

To which we would say — of course.

And so we add a 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.

♦ ◊ ♦

SETTING THE DOMINION OF HEAVENLY ORDINANCES IN THE EARTH

I’m drawn back to those haunting questions in the 38th chapter of the Book of Job: “Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” And the preceding one: “Can’t thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?” And the one before that: “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” These challenges all have something to do with the stars and constellations, the Zodiac and the Science of Mazzaroth, the feminine and the masculine energies, and with Arcturus the Great Red Giant and father of stars.  This question particularly piques my interest: “Who hath put wisdom in the inner parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?” 

All of these demands are preceded by the Lord’s answer to Job from out of the whirlwind:  “Gird up now they loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” We’re supposed to know these things consciously and understand them in our hearts, where true understanding takes place.  We are created and equipped to participate in the manifestation of Creation from out of the “inner parts“—the parts that scientists have bumped up against and by which they’ve been stopped in their tracks and left gazing into the ineffable formulating theories about what they imagine is occurring there.

Yet, I dare ask, are they only theories?  Has the repentant mind of Man, exhausted from crawling on its belly “up and down and to and fro in the earth,” looked upward and ascended to the heights of Heaven?  Has it been invited into the “inner parts” of Creation; been restored to its ordained place in Heaven, humble and no longer behaving as Satan, the prince of darkness and destroyer of life, but now functioning as a bearer of the Light of Truth?  That is, after all, the literal meaning of the word “Lucifer:” Light Bearer. 

In the Beginning when Man’s mind was in Heaven, it was called Lucifer . . . and Morning Star, Day Star and Son of the Morning.  Morning, the beginning of a new day, is also the herald of a new creative cycle.  Light is needed at the dawn of new cycles to cast light on the way forward.  I think this is what has been occurring over the last several decades, evidenced by the rise of spiritual guides, mentors and teachers the world over—a rise in the Consciousness of Man to an opened window in Heaven out from which the Light of Truth shines into the human mind, including the minds of scientist and physicists who apparently have sufficient resonant substance in their hearts to perceive the spiritual implications in their research and experiments.  

Have we been drawn to the very threshold of Creation, the Gate leading to the Garden of Eden where the angel with a flaming sword that turns in every directions stands guarding the way to the Tree of Life?  Has the restoration of Man to his ordained state moved us thus far toward enlightenment since this cycle was initiated by the Lord of Love some 2000 years ago?  Are these the end times of a dark age and the dawning of the first days of a Golden Age of Light?  

How shall we view and receive these explorers of the Quantum World of atomic waves and particles, the stuff of creation, the “dark matter” of which the cosmos is made, the yet unformed waves of energy between the stars awaiting the Command of Love?  “Let there be light!”  And who are the ones chosen and designated to speak Love’s Command if not we who have incarnated for this very purpose?  Am I asking the right questions for our time in the sunlight?  Is it too much to ask that we leave the old world behind and enter the Garden of Heaven at hand.  A New World awaits as waves of limitless possibilities for our command.  Let us tarry no longer in bringing it forth into manifestation . . . t-o-g-e-t-h-e-r.  Until my next post,

Be love. Be loved

Anthony   (tpal70@gmail.com)

P.S. Desolate and covered with boils, yet Job did not curse God and die, as his three friends advised.  Rather he repented in dust and ashes . . . and he prayed for his three friend.  “So the Lord blessed the later end of Job more than the beginning , , , and gave Job twice as much as he had before. “Perhaps we could pray for those who seek to harm and kill us , , , even forgive them because they do not know what they are doing.

Credit: Graphic at top is by Rose Meeker

Biocentrism: Behold, I Create . . . Something from Nothing

“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.

Biocentrism 2: Where is the Universe? part 2

A Galaxy with photoshopped central star 

“We can will ourselves to act, but we cannot will ourselves to will.”    Albert Einstein

THIS ENTIRE CONSIDERATION reminds me of something a scientists once concluded at the end of his article: “We may never find the seat of consciousness, because what we are looking for is who is looking.” An axiom of ontological studies is “A state cannot observe itself.”  If you can see it and observe it, then it isn’t you, no matter how close it is to you or how pleasant or unpleasant.  We really can’t “work on ourselves.”  We can only work on changing our expression and our behavior, as well as our opinions and beliefs about ourselves.  The truth of you is that you are perfect, made in the image and likeness of the Creator — which fact makes you a creator who has a free will and choice about what you will create.  We cannot change who we are, nor escape the responsibility for our creations.  We are who and what we are: a Human Being — a creator Being incarnate in a Human form, come here from the Creator in the Heaven to create beauty on the Earth.  These words by my spiritual mentor, the late Martin Cecil, shared by Jae Hyoung Lee on Facebook today, express this truth in a more specific way:

We need to learn not to be disturbed. We need to stop responding to the external thing. We can relinquish human judgments of all kinds, critical attitudes one toward another, because our sole concern is with the kingdom of God and His righteousness, maintaining the heavenly atmosphere, that which is divine. It is not important that you should try to correct someone else, try to make someone else behave the way you think they ought to, according to your concept of what would be good presumably–but good for whom? Well usually it is “good for me,” is it not? Self-centered. Our concern is not with trying to change our fellows or ourselves. Our concern is simply with maintaining the atmosphere which will allow the right divine change to occur. if the divine atmosphere is provided in the spiritual sense we will just naturally grow up too. The process will unfold just as surely as the process of physical growth. 

♦ ◊ ♦

FROM MY READERS   

Jerry Kvasnicka from Sunrise Ranch in Loveland, Colorado, wrote in a comment to my previous post:

Once again, Anthony, you have hit the nail right on the head! I love the way you put it: “I am consciousness and I create my world. Collectively, We are Consciousness and We create our world together as one body of Man, male and female, made in the image and likeness of God.” Yes, I am a representative of the Creator here in human form on earth to bring the wonders of Heaven into the earth of my living.

Here in the spiritual community where I live we have recently been meditating on the statement: “The mystery of God is finished on earth.” God has been a mystery to human beings because God is thought of as being separate–up there, over there, anywhere but here. So in an effort to connect with God human beings develop religions, philosophical systems and all manner of beliefs and practices to somehow bridge the perceived gap between themselves and the Divine.

The deplorable state of humanity on earth is the result of this ignorance. Not until we individually and collectively take responsibility for finishing the mystery of God on earth by revealing Divine character in living will the body of humanity (which in reality is the Body of the Creator) begin to thrive again and return the earth to its rightful status as a sparkling gem in the cosmos.

♦ ◊ ♦

CONTINING from where I left off in my review of Dr. Robert Lanza’s book BIOCENTRISM in my previous post, I will conclude the author’s consideration of this chapter.  Earlier on the author asks: Where are the sensations of life?” — a question we might ask in our efforts to pin down and understand the sense of self.  Repeating what I wrote earlier: I know that my brain does not decide nor originate my body’s movements. It is clearly used in the process, along with all the other anatomical parts — and there are habitual patterns of movement developed simply by repetitive practice, such as in piano playing and typing. But the brain is not the author nor originator of my movements.  The author and creator of my body’s movements is the immortal being that I AM incarnate in this earthen form — and, believe it or not, this has been proven scientifically” — as the following excerpt elucidates.  

♦ ◊ ♦

Finally, some revert to the “control” aspect to assert the fundamental separation of ourselves and an external, objective reality. But control is a widely misunderstood concept. Although we commonly believe that clouds form, planets spin, and our own livers manufacture their hundreds of enzymes “all by themselves,” we nonetheless have been accustomed to hold that our minds possess a peculiarly unique self controlling feature that creates a bottom-line distinction between self and external world. In reality, recent experiments show conclusively that the brain’s electrochemical connections, its neural impulses traveling at 240 miles per hour, cause decisions to be made faster than we are even aware of them. In other words, the brain and mind, too, operate all by itself, without any need for external meddling by our thoughts, which also incidentally occur by themselves. So control, too, is largely an illusion. As Einstein put it, “We can will ourselves to act, but we cannot will ourselves to will.”

The most cited experiment in this field was conducted a quarter century ago. Researcher Benjamin Libet asked subjects to choose a random moment to perform a hand motion while hooked up to an electroencephalograph (EEG) monitor in which the so-called “readiness potential” of the brain was being monitored. Naturally, electrical signals always precede actual physical actions, but Libet wanted to know whether they also preceded a subject’s subjective feeling of intention to act. In short, is there some subjective “self” who consciously decides things, thereby setting in motion the brain’s electrical activities that ultimately lead to the action? Or is it the other way ’round?  Subjects were therefore asked to note the position of a clock’s second hand when they first felt the initial intention to move their hand.

Libet’s findings were consistent, and perhaps not surprising: unconscious, unfelt, brain electrical activity occurred a full half second before there was any conscious sense of  decision-making by the subject. More recent experiments by Libet, announced in 2008, analyzing separate, higher-order brain functions, have allowed his research team to predict up to ten seconds in advance which hand a subject is about to decide to raise. Ten seconds is nearly an eternity when it comes to cognitive decisions, and yet a person’s eventual decision could be seen on brain scans that long before the subject was even remotely aware of having made any decision. This and other experiments prove that the brain makes its own decisions on a subconscious level, and people only later feel that “they” have performed a conscious decision. It means that we go through life thinking that, unlike the blessedly autonomous operations of the heart and kidneys, a lever-pulling “me” is in charge of the brain’s workings. Libet concluded that the sense of personal free will arises solely from a habitual retrospective perspective of the ongoing flow of brain events.

What, then, do we make of all this? First, that we are truly free to enjoy the unfolding of life, including our own lives, unencumbered by the acquired, often guilt-ridden sense of control, and the obsessive need to avoid messing up. We can relax, because we’ll automatically perform anyway.

Second, and more to the point of this book and chapter, modern knowledge of the brain shows that what appears “out there” is actually occurring within our own minds, with visual and tactile experiences located not in some external disconnected location that we have grown accustomed to regarding as being distant from ourselves. Looking around, we see only our own mind or, perhaps, it’s better put that there is no true disconnect between external and internal. Instead, we can label all cognition as an amalgam of our experiential selves and whatever energy field may pervade the cosmos. To avoid such awkward phrasing, we’ll allude to it by simply calling it awareness or consciousness. With this in mind (no pun intended), we’ll see how any “theory of everything” must incorporate this biocentrism—or else be a train on a track to nowhere.

To sum up:

First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.

Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated. 

♦ ◊ ♦

In my next post, I will present the Third Principle of Biocentrism, which delves into the mysterious and magical realm of quantum physics and the materialization of energy in the presence of an observer.  As always, I welcome your thoughts.  Until then,

Be love.  Be loved 

Anthony 

tpal70@gmail.com 

You may enjoy reading articles in my HealhLight Newsletter blog: LiftingTones.com.  The current article is entitles “Our Unified Creating Field.”  

Biocentrism 2: “Where Is The Universe?” Part 1

   The Holy Place of Creation

FROM MY READERS:  Neil Salka writes:  Some heavy duty thoughts you are writing about. Thank you. Love getting your posts.  In the last one about biocentrism towards the end, you write: “one fully understands that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence,…..” now that thought alone stirs up in my mind: are you stating that we are actually/essentially dead outside of ‘biological existence’?  Dead in consciousness therefore no ‘life’ as we understand it? If there is no biological existence, what or where is life and consciousness? and then instead of: what happened in the second after big bang? it might be better to ask: where did my consciousness (life) come from? so life/consciousness came FIRST and then the body/biological existence. . . . first the Heaven, then the earth. Is heaven simply consciousness?

Great questions, Neil, both of which stop scientists in their tracks . . . and great segue to this post. Let’s explore your questions.

For as far back as I can remember, I’ve had a vivid awareness of being an immortal spiritual being. This awareness emphasizes itself as I move my arms to reach out and my legs to walk — presently as I move my fingers across the keyboard typing out the thoughts emerging through my mind while composing this blog post. 

Having studied the anatomy and physiology of the physical body, I am aware of the complex chemical, neurological, muscular, circulatory and skeletal systems involved in moving the various parts of my anatomy.  They work quite smoothly and cooperatively together with instantaneous precision in finding the right keys to type a word, a sentence, a complete thought.  That being so, I know that my brain does not decide nor originate my body’s movements.  It is clearly used in the process, along with all the other anatomical parts — and there are habitual patterns of movement developed simply by repetitive practice, such as in piano playing and typing.  But the brain is not the author nor originator of my movements.  The author and creator of my body’s movements is the immortal being that I AM incarnate in this earthen form — and, believe it or not, this has been proven scientifically.  Read on. 

In the following excerpt from Dr. Robert Lanza’s¹ book BIOCENTRISM,² he delves into the illusion of separate internal and external realities, which brings us to a consideration of the second principle of biocentrism — which I will let the author explain and develop in his own words.

♦ ◊ ♦

The Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.  They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.”

First . . . simple logic must be used to answer a most basic question: where is the universe located?  It is here that we will need to deviate from conventional thinking and shared assumptions, some of which are inherent in language itself.

All of us are taught since earliest childhood that the universe can be fundamentally divided into two entities: ourselves, and that which is outside of us. This seems logical and apparent.  What is “me” is commonly defined by what I can control.  I can move my fingers, but I cannot wiggle your toes.  This dichotomy, then, is based largely on manipulation. The dividing line between self and non-self is generally taken to be the skin, strongly implying that I am this body and nothing else.

Of course when a chunk of the body has vanished, as some unfortunate amputees have experienced, one still feels oneself to be just as “present” and “here” as before, and not subjectively diminished in the least. This logic could be carried forth easily enough until one arrives at solely the brain itself perceiving itself as “me”—because if a human head could be maintained with an artificial heart and the rest, it too would reply “Here!” if its name were shouted at roll call. 

Now, this is a rather simplified, as well as divisive, description of “me” versus “you” and everything “out there” not enveloped within my skin.  We know, or at lease believe, that all is one and that there is no energetic separation between the multifaceted and diverse forms and entities in the Universe—and there is only apparent separation between the outer borders of physical forms in the Universe.  The question this doctor raises in his book is “Where is the Universe?” Where does it exist as far as we are concerned and aware?  According to the principles of Biocentrism, the Universe exists solely in the back of our cognitive brains, projected there by our eyes via the complex workings of the visual cortex.  

WHERE ARE THE SENSATIONS OF LIFE?

We can start with everything visual that is currently being perceived all around us — this book you are holding, for example. Language and custom say that it all lies outside us in the external world. Yet we’ve already seen that nothing can be perceived that is not already interacting with our consciousness, which is why biocentric axiom number one is that nature or the so-called external world must be correlative with consciousness. One doesn’t exist without the other. What this means is that when we do not look at the Moon the Moon effectively vanishes-which, subjectively, is obvious enough. If we still think of the Moon and believe that it’s out there orbiting the Earth, or accept that other people are probably watching it, all such thoughts are still mental constructs. The bottom-line issue here is if no consciousness existed at all, in what sense would the Moon persist, and in what form?

So what is it that we see when we observe nature? The answer in terms of image-location and neural mechanics is actually more straightforward than almost any other aspect of biocentrism. Because the images of the trees, grass, the book you’re holding, and everything else that’s perceived is real and not imaginary, it must be physically happening in some location. Human physiology texts answer this without ambiguity. Although the eye and retina gather photons that deliver their payloads of bits of the electromagnetic force, these are channeled through heavy-duty cables straight back until the actual perception of images themselves physically occurs in the back of the brain, augmented by other nearby locations, in special sections that are as vast and labyrinthine as the hallways of the Milky Way, and contain as many neurons as there are stars in the galaxy. This, according to human physiology texts, is where the actual colors, shapes, and movement “happen.” This is where they are perceived or cognized.

If you consciously try to access that luminous, energy-filled, visual part of the brain, you might at first be frustrated; you might tap the back of your skull and feel a particularly vacuous sense of nothingness. But that’s because it was an unnecessary exercise: you’re already accessing the visual portion of the brain with every glance you take. Look now, at anything. Custom has told us that what we see is “out there,” outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in terms of language and utility, as in “Please pass the butter that’s over there.” But make no mistake: the visual image of that butter, that is, the butter itself, actually exists only inside your brain. That is its location. It is the only place visual images are perceived and cognized.

Some may imagine that there are two worlds, one “out there” and a separate one being cognized inside the skull. But the “two worlds” model is a myth. Nothing is perceived except the perceptions themselves, and nothing exists outside of consciousness. Only one visual reality is extant, and there it is. Right there.

The “outside world” is, therefore, located within the brain or mind. Of course, this is so astounding for many people, even if it is obvious to those who study the brain, that it becomes possible to over-think the issue and come up with attempted refutations. “Yeah, but what about someone born blind?” “And what about touch; if things aren’t out there, how can we feel them?”

In the previous chapter, the author describes the tactile perception of a “solid” external world.

What about if you touch something? Isn’t it solid? Push on the trunk of the fallen tree and you feel pressure. But this too is a sensa­tion strictly inside your brain and only “projected” to your fingers, whose existence also lies within the mind. Moreover, that sensation of pressure is caused not by any contact with a solid, but by the fact that every atom has negatively charged electrons in its outer shells.  As we all know, charges of the same type repel each other, so the bark’s electrons repel yours, and you feel this electrical repulsive force stopping your fingers from penetrating any further. Nothing solid ever meets any other solids when you push on a tree. The atoms in your fingers are each as empty as a vacant football stadium in which a single fly sits on the fifty-yard line. If we needed solids to stop us (rather than energy fields), our fingers could easily penetrate the tree as if we were swiping at fog.

None of that changes the reality: touch, too, occurs only within consciousness or the mind. Every aspect of that butter, its existence on every level, is not outside of one’s being. The real mind-twister to all this, and the reason some are loath to accept what should be patently obvious, is that its implications destroy the entire house-of-­cards worldview that we have embraced all our lives. If that is consciousness, or mind, right in front of us, then consciousness extends indefinitely to all that is cognized — calling into question the nature and reality of something we will devote an entire chapter to: space. If that before us is consciousness, it can change the area of scientific focus from the nature of a cold, inert, external universe to issues such as how your consciousness relates to mine and to that of the animals. But we’ll put aside, for the moment, questions of the unity of consciousness. Let it suffice to say that any overarching unity of consciousness is not just difficult or impossible to prove but is fundamentally incompatible with dualistic languages — which adds an additional burden of making it difficult to grasp with logic alone. 

Why? Language was created to work exclusively through symbolism and to divide nature into parts and actions. The word water is not actual water, and the word it corresponds to nothing at all in the phrase “It is raining.” Even if well acquainted with the limitations and vagaries of language, we must be especially on guard against dismissing biocentrism (or any way of cognizing the universe as a whole) too quickly if it doesn’t at first glance seem compatible with customary verbal constructions; we will discuss this at much greater length in a later chapter. The challenge here, alas, is to peer not just behind habitual ways of thinking, but to go beyond some of the tools of the thinking process itself, to grasp the universe in a way that is at the same time simpler and more demanding than that to which we are accustomed. Absolutely everything in the symbolic realm, for example, has come into existence at one point in time, and will eventually die — even mountains. Yet consciousness, like aspects of quantum theory involving entangled particles, may exist outside of time altogether.   (To be concluded in my next post)

♦ ◊ ♦

THE IMAGINAL REALM OF CREATION

There’s a biblical passage that says “The thoughts and imagining of men’s hearts are only evil continually.” They don’t have to continue being evil.  I am here, along with a host of other incarnate angels, to change that, so that the world and the people in the world can be safe and made new in our consciousness.  

Consciousness can be seen as the “Imaginal Realm,” the Holy Place where creation and re-creation take place, and out of which creation emerges into the realm of visible, material form.  It is also the realm in which visions and visitations from heavenly beings take place.  Here in this vibratory garden the true design of form is seeded by Life from above and within the Heavenly Kingdom of heavens — the garden of consciousness being the heaven out of which the kingdoms of this world emerge.  It is also a vibrational workshop, so-to-speak, for re-creation and for making all things new again.  The image of our world being projected from “outside” into our consciousness is herein made available for our co-creative work of re-creation in the heaven.  “Behold, I create and make all things new!” is our intention and command as co-creators with the Creator and with one another.  Consciousness is, in that sense, an aspect of who we are.  I am consciousness and I create my world.  Collectively, We are Consciousness and We create our world together as one body of Man, male and female, made in the image and likeness of God. To participate with the Creator at this level requires that we relinquish our false temporary identity as creatures and rise up to take on our true and immortal identity as creator Beings.  I will continue along this vein of consideration in future posts of this series.  As always, I welcome your participation by sharing your thoughts.  Until my next post, 

Be love. Be loved. 

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com

You may enjoy reading articles relative to health and wholeness on my HealthLight Newsletter blog: LiftingTones.com

REFERENCES:

¹ROBERT LANZA, MD, is one of the most respected scientists in the world—A U.S. News & World Report cover story called him a “genius” and a “renegade thinker,” and likened him to Einstein. Currently chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell Technology and an adjunct professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Lanza has hundreds of publications and inventions and more than two dozen scientific books to his credit, including Principles if Tissue Engineering, recognized as the definitive reference in the field.  BOB BERMAN is one of the best-known astronomers in the world. He is Astronomy magazine’s “Strange Universe” columnist as well as the former astronomy columnist for Discover and it responsible for the astronomy section of The Old Farmer’s Almanac.

²BIOCENTRSM, How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.  In recent years quantum theory has forced a sea of change in Western natural philosophy, casting doubt on traditional physical explanations of the universe’s genesis and structure. Biocentrism completes this shift in worldview as it takes on one of the key tenets of Western thinking: that all life ultimately reduces to physics. In its place it offers the revolutionary view that biology is primary — that life creates the universe, not the other way around.

Biocentrism: Behold! And Everything Matters!

“The only things we perceive are our perceptions.” —George Berkeley

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNVERSE and with our world is one of creator with creation—not merely in a mechanical or physical sense, as in building houses, roads and cities. I’m thinking in terms of the dynamics of quantum physics, the realm of preform where everything in held in “wave form” until it materializes into “particle form” in the simple action of being observed by a conscious being. 

Do Christmas and New Years exist outside of human consciousness?  For that matter, does anything exist outside of human consciousness? According to Biocentrism, there is an existential relationship between life, consciousness and physical reality. The world of “solid” form springs into visible existence the moment it is observed. A tree falling in the forest makes no sound without someone present who has the capacity to perceive the perturbed air molecules and interpret them as sound.  A candle’s flame of hot gas has no color or glow unless a functional pair of eyes are present to observe it and call it candlelight.   

This is the fascinating field of Biocentrism as explored and elucidated by Robert Lanza, MD with the assistance of Bob Berman.  From the introduction of their book BIOICENTRISM—How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe:

This book proposes a new perspective: that our current theories of the physical world don’t work, and can never be made to work, until they account for life and consciousness. This book proposes that, rather than a belated and minor outcome after billions of years of lifeless physical processes, life and consciousness are absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the universe. We call this new perspective biocentrism.

I will do my best to represent their tenacious explorations and resultant findings in a series of blog posts.  I hope you will enjoy this series and benefit by the work of these two critical thinkers.  There are seven “Principles of Biocentrism.”  I will take them one by one with each post. 

The First Principle of Biocentrism: “What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.”

Our science to date has failed to recognize those special properties of life that make it fundamental to material reality. This view of the world in which life and consciousness are the bottom line in understanding the larger Universe—biocentrism—revolves around the way a subjective experience, which we call consciousness, relates to a physical process. . . .

Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to understanding the first second of time after the Big Bang rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality.

But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that science has not confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious: conscious awareness. As Emerson wrote in “Experience,” an essay that confronted the facile positivism of his age: “We have learned that we do not see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.”

CREATED BY LIFE FOR LIFE’S PURPOSES

The word biocentric simply means life-centered, which characterizes the creative design and purpose of the Universe and all its vast and multifaceted structure and content, both animate and inanimate.  In simple terms, the Universe is created by invisible Life to express Life through visible, material form.  In quantum terms, the Universe is created by Light as a dynamic mechanism for moving creating energy out of invisible, intangible wave-form and into visible, tangible particle-form.  Where we come into this dynamic equation is as a means on the ground floor of the Father’s House of Many Mansions for bearing the Light of Truth and bringing it to bear at the threshold of creativity where the invisible, intangible and inaudible become visible, tangible and audible.  In a word, we ground Consciousness for the Creator in the Heaven to create on the Earth—which was created as a womb for beauty to be born, to borrow a line from a hymn I shared in my Christmas Day message.

WE ARE THE LIGHT OF OUR WORLD 

My wife and I love to sit on the East bank of our beautiful lake and watch the sun set in the Western horizon, often glorified by clouds lighted and brilliantly colored by the rays of the sun.  On one occasion we observed how the sunlight, reflected off the surface of the waters, made a direct and separate path of light to each of us—not a single path of light, but two.  Then we remarked how each person on the boardwalk that evening had their own individual path of light from the setting sun.  This is also true for rainbows.  There are as many rainbows in a single sighting as there are human beings looking at what we might think is just one rainbow.  No two people see the same rainbow.  We each have our own.  Notice how the rainbow created in the spray of a lawn sprinkler moves with your movements.  It’s yours and nobody else’s. 

This gives me pause for deep consideration and meditation.  What does it mean?  What is this phenomenon telling me?  That I center a world?  That, like in the movie It’s A Wonderful Life, without me the world that I center would not exist, as though I had never been born—like with George Bailey’s wish his guardian angel Clarence granted him to show him how much his life meant and mattered to everyone in his world.  It’s a tear-jerker of a story for me every year, such a softy that I am.  Of course Clarence steals the show.  What really gets my eyes watering is the final scene where all the people in George’s world of care and service come to his rescue with so much love, generosity and robust appreciation.  That gets to me whenever and wherever I see it demonstrated. 

My life matters.  Now there’s an interesting and dynamic word.  Matters can have two meanings: counts as something and materializes.  My life counts a great deal to many, and it materializes as I live it.  It unfolds out of my consciousness moment by moment, day by day, year by year.  My living on Earth leaves a trail of forms, as well as relationships and friends, that came into manifestation and formed simply by reason of my presence and creativity in it.  I am responsible for a world that no one but I created—of course with the help of many other important people whom I’ve met in my journey—and that implies a shared consciousness, and a collective consciousness involving as many as draw near in creating a world in which to live together in community.  It’s a sobering thought when I stop to consider the implications, an obvious one being that I am not alone in this world.  We are one family of Man living on a relatively small planet adrift in a galaxy of heavenly bodies speeding through space and time.

Space and time?  What are space and time?  Do they really exist?  How do I know there is a vast cosmos “out there” set in motion by a “Big Bang” that allegedly occurred billions of years ago?  Years?  What is time?  How can the infinite be measured by the finite?  The ineffable by the effable?  Where does all this exist except in our own imagination, our own consciousness—two more interesting and dynamic words:  imagination is the ability of the mind to make images, and consciousness is a capacity with which to know.  They’re verbs, not nouns.  The Universe isn’t a “thing.” The Universe is a dynamic living organism, the nature of which scientists have only been able to speculate:

George Berkeley, for whom the campus and town were named, came to a similar conclusion: “The only things we perceive,” he would say, “are our perceptions.”

A biologist is at first glance perhaps an unlikely source for a new theory of the universe. But at a time when biologists believe they have discovered the “universal cell” in the form of embryonic stem cells, and some cosmologists predict that a unifying theory of the universe may be discovered in the next two decades, it is perhaps inevitable that a biologist finally seeks to unify existing theories of the “physical world” with those of the “living world.” What other discipline can approach it? In that regard, biology should really be the first and last study of science. It is our own nature that is unlocked by the humanly created natural sciences used to understand the universe.  (underscore added)

A deep problem lurks, too: we have failed to protect science against speculative theories that have so entered mainstream thinking that they now masquerade as fact. The “ether” of the nineteenth century; the “space-time” of Einstein; the “string theory” of the new millennium with new dimensions blowing up in different realms, and not only strings but “bubbles” shimmering down the byways of the universe are examples of this speculation. Indeed, unseen dimensions (up to one hundred in some theories) are now envisioned everywhere, some curled up like soda-straws at every point in space.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND LIFE

This brings us back to the quantum field out of which all forms emerge.  Consciousness and life, the very foundational realities that underlie the biological and chemical worlds scientists search and research, yet know nothing about but live to hopefully know what they are and how they tick before their time runs out.  Time: an illusionary convenience we invented to organize and schedule our calendars of events.  Space: an imaginary finite way of attempting to measure the infinitely eternal HERE an NOW.  

THEORIES ABOUND IN THE SCIENTIFIC MIND

Today’s preoccupation with unprovable physical “theories of everything” is a sacrilege to science itself, a strange detour from the purpose of the scientific method, whose bible has always decreed that we must question everything relentlessly and not worship what Bacon called “The Idols of the Mind.” Modern physics has become like Swift’s Kingdom of Laputa, flying precariously on an island above the Earth and indifferent to the world beneath. When science tries to resolve a theory’s conflicts by adding and subtracting dimensions to the universe like houses on a Monopoly board, dimensions unknown to our senses and for which not a shred of observational or experimental evidence exists, we need to take a time-out and examine our dogmas. And when ideas are thrown around with no physical backing and no hope of experimental confirmation one may wonder whether this can still be called science at all. “If you’re not observing,” says a relativity expert, Professor Tarun Biswas of the State University of New York, “there’s no point in coming up with theories.”

Absent the act of seeing, thinking, hearing—in short, awareness in its myriad aspects—what have we got?  We can believe and aver that there’s a universe out there even if all living creatures were nonexistent, but this idea is merely a thought and a thought requires a thinking organism. Without any organism, what if anything is really there?

For the moment, therefore, we’ll accept on a provisional level that what we’d clearly and unambiguously recognize as existence must begin with life and perception. Indeed, what could existence mean, absent consciousness of any kind?

. . . . This “Is it really there?” issue is ancient, and of course predates biocentrism, which makes no pretense about being the first to take a stance about it. Biocentrism, however, explains why one view and not the other must be correct. The converse is equally true: once one fully understands that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence, the rest more or less falls into place.

We live, largely unaware, at the hub of creativity in a world that spins around us having materialized out of our collective consciousness.  This is one responsibility from which we cannot escape or run away from to some distant planet or moon.

We do not just have a consciousness.  We are consciousness itself, the capacity to know—in the biblical sense of that word as when Adam knew Eve and begot Cain and Able.  We are given the privilege and responsibility to engage in intercourse between Heaven and Earth to beget life forms that reflect the harmony and beauty of Heaven inherent in the many dimensions and frequencies of Light.  Through our eyes and consciousness the Creator can see and enjoy Creation—perhaps even bring it out of wave-form into particle-form where it can be seen and enjoyed. 

My friend in Loveland, Colorado, Jerry Kvasnicka, expressed this privilege with passion in a response to one of my blog articles:   

We are surely the lucky ones, to be incarnate in this body of flesh and able to sample all of sights, smells, sounds, tastes and other physical sensations combined with the thoughts, feelings and the ineffable essences that well up from the deepest recesses of the soul, all of which may visit us daily as we walk from place to place on this sacred Earth.   

I welcome any comments and thoughts you may wish to share.  Until my next post in this series, I wish for you a very Happy New Year and a healthy 2022.

Be love.  Be loved

Anthony 

tpal70@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tag Cloud