Session 4 April 2015
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
I think I came to understand the principle. Step by step. No concept. Small steps.
Let me try again.
For starters, look at Christians drawing Sufi rotation. On the right side of purple streaks consider that the 3D and 4D on the left. In 3D we have someone / something that has some kind of goal (4D). This has: the vision, intention, will, and desire, to achieve this. It uses its knowledge and ability to realize (learn how). When realized his intention then was in 4D. Very easy. Here begins a new cycle, and I'll stop there.
Now look Palinurus video. There is a lot more complicated. We have the orchestra, with a lot of different instruments, which produce different sounds, and because they play different music. There are also sets of identical instruments, but each plays a little different (variation on a theme). So, not everyone can be the first violin, someone has to be the drummer. The drummer does not have to become a player on the violin and vice versa, but some of the basics of playing both need to know in order to play together. Then there: choir, various soloists, viewers / listeners and at the end, conductor, encompassing all this. Every man for himself developed some talent (in this case music), are gathered together in the hall (3D) for a common goal (4D), a concert. At the very beginning of the concert it was a great murmur or chaos, and then the sign of the conductor, starts making.
Now look at us, human beings on planet earth, or as exemplary, us in this forum. We have: the will, intention, ability and knowledge (each of us, as musicians) to go to 4D. To achieve this we need a common repertoire, the vision of the final goal, according to which we will together develop our capabilities, to the maximum, each in its environment.
We need to define the target.
For me, the goal would be the answer to the questions:
What is the next stop on the evolutionary tape?
Towards what to strive for or what are we trying to accomplish?
Yours sincerely
Let me try again.
For starters, look at Christians drawing Sufi rotation. On the right side of purple streaks consider that the 3D and 4D on the left. In 3D we have someone / something that has some kind of goal (4D). This has: the vision, intention, will, and desire, to achieve this. It uses its knowledge and ability to realize (learn how). When realized his intention then was in 4D. Very easy. Here begins a new cycle, and I'll stop there.
Now look Palinurus video. There is a lot more complicated. We have the orchestra, with a lot of different instruments, which produce different sounds, and because they play different music. There are also sets of identical instruments, but each plays a little different (variation on a theme). So, not everyone can be the first violin, someone has to be the drummer. The drummer does not have to become a player on the violin and vice versa, but some of the basics of playing both need to know in order to play together. Then there: choir, various soloists, viewers / listeners and at the end, conductor, encompassing all this. Every man for himself developed some talent (in this case music), are gathered together in the hall (3D) for a common goal (4D), a concert. At the very beginning of the concert it was a great murmur or chaos, and then the sign of the conductor, starts making.
Now look at us, human beings on planet earth, or as exemplary, us in this forum. We have: the will, intention, ability and knowledge (each of us, as musicians) to go to 4D. To achieve this we need a common repertoire, the vision of the final goal, according to which we will together develop our capabilities, to the maximum, each in its environment.
We need to define the target.
For me, the goal would be the answer to the questions:
What is the next stop on the evolutionary tape?
Towards what to strive for or what are we trying to accomplish?
Yours sincerely
Mikel said:
Alvalsen,
I agree with Mikel. This is a very interesting picture. It really looks like 4D reptilian gods ruling over 3D mortals supported by a priesthood. The headdresses look like some sort of technology too. I just wonder if this a real fresco or an artist using his imagination. It would be nice to know someone who could read the hieroglyphics. It has a big visual impact I think.
Thanks :)
Kika said:
Kika,
I think your observations are good ones. They describe some of the things we should be doing to come closer together on the forum. To see more details of the goal/goals I always go to the previous sessions for review and research.
Here is one session that hints at the goal and direction we could be working towards:
Session 14 January 1995
I guess a question we all may have when discovering the Cs and the sessions is whether we are 4th density candidates?
And we wonder what we would do if we didn't have Laura, Ark and the session members there to be a "conduit" for the clues to give us hope and direction?
Hopefully, the description of the "conduit" is helpful in determining at least one of the main goals of the forum. Of course we must first Work on ourselves to clean our machines and tune up.
If you want more detail there were other sessions before this section that could can check our here: Re: Session 14 March 2015
About quantum theory, first a clarification. Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment. It's only to illustrate that on a fundamental level, i.e. subatomic, fundamental particles, reality doesn't work the way we perceive on bigger scales, e.g. our own scale.
I'm not sure, as 13TT said, that the two main interpretations have to be mutually exclusive. They may, in fact, be saying the same thing in different ways. The Many Worlds interpretation is as weird as the Copenhagen one, from a mainstream way of looking at things, isn't it? The way mainstream, materialistic "science" presents things, it's as if everything is known, settled, and solid / stable. Not to mention some of the really absurd "theories" that are dogmatic gospel for the mainstream scientific community, such as Big Bang (really just another creation by fiat type of creation myth with a "definite beginning" and completely unknown / unspoken what came before this linear narrative), or even worse, the Darwinian / neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution and the surrounding claims that it all (life) began accidentally by things colliding in a primordial chemical soup. I mean, the probability of having the complex lifeforms coming about that way is so remote (and even for the simplest lifeforms known) that there has to be innumerable more likely ways to explain life. It's almost more unlikely and absurd than any religious myth.
Now, the implication of quantum theory seems to be that the physical reality we perceive, and even that part which we can't directly perceive but can still measure indirectly by the effects on what we CAN perceive with out senses, etc., is not at all what is seems to be. There are so many speculations that could be made, such as both the superposition / all states existing until observation / measurement of the state of a system is made, AND the Many Worlds / multiverse interpretations are both true. For example, we can speculate that the superposition expands into the Many Worlds WHEN observed / measured, and doesn't need to UNTIL measured / observed. In other words, the mind of the observer collapses the probability wave in ITS universe and only ONE state exists there, but at the same time all other possibilities and universes now exist in parallel - "expanded" into a space-time continuum for each one? It's as if space and time are also intimately connected to mind in this speculation. The superposition is all potential / possible states abstractly existing WITHOUT any kind of observer. When any kind of observation / measurement / verification is made is when all other possible states also come into a parallel existence of their own?
But what is the point of these speculations? It's kind of silly to me, because we can't come to a definite conclusion one way or another. It seems to me that it all just ends up as though experiments. It's kind of fun for a while, if we don't go overboard speculating without being able to come to any firm conclusions. If I were to speculate more, I wonder in the context of things the C's have said, that chaos is a prerequisite to creation. Like on the subatomic level, this chaotic state of affairs where nothing is fixed is necessary to how information from higher levels comes into our reality (interacting with our consciousness / awareness / perceptions, etc.). As if that is a requirement for our 3D physical world to manifest.
Finally, no matter how you cut it, you can't reasonably interpret quantum theory to mean that objective reality doesn't exist. Put it this way, no matter how weird the quantum world seems, it's exactly how the Universe / Macro-Cosmos as a whole sees itself whatever is happening wherever in the parallel universes / multiverses. So, I don't at all get the impression that quantum theory implies there's no such thing as objective reality in any of its interpretations. If anything, I get the impression that no matter what, we on our level are very subjective in comparison TO Objective Reality. Does that make sense or clear some things up?
Also things might work in a similar way on the macro scale as they do on the micro scale, it just takes MUCH more "time" for the probability / wave function collapse to become actualized in any given universe....
I'm not sure, as 13TT said, that the two main interpretations have to be mutually exclusive. They may, in fact, be saying the same thing in different ways. The Many Worlds interpretation is as weird as the Copenhagen one, from a mainstream way of looking at things, isn't it? The way mainstream, materialistic "science" presents things, it's as if everything is known, settled, and solid / stable. Not to mention some of the really absurd "theories" that are dogmatic gospel for the mainstream scientific community, such as Big Bang (really just another creation by fiat type of creation myth with a "definite beginning" and completely unknown / unspoken what came before this linear narrative), or even worse, the Darwinian / neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution and the surrounding claims that it all (life) began accidentally by things colliding in a primordial chemical soup. I mean, the probability of having the complex lifeforms coming about that way is so remote (and even for the simplest lifeforms known) that there has to be innumerable more likely ways to explain life. It's almost more unlikely and absurd than any religious myth.
Now, the implication of quantum theory seems to be that the physical reality we perceive, and even that part which we can't directly perceive but can still measure indirectly by the effects on what we CAN perceive with out senses, etc., is not at all what is seems to be. There are so many speculations that could be made, such as both the superposition / all states existing until observation / measurement of the state of a system is made, AND the Many Worlds / multiverse interpretations are both true. For example, we can speculate that the superposition expands into the Many Worlds WHEN observed / measured, and doesn't need to UNTIL measured / observed. In other words, the mind of the observer collapses the probability wave in ITS universe and only ONE state exists there, but at the same time all other possibilities and universes now exist in parallel - "expanded" into a space-time continuum for each one? It's as if space and time are also intimately connected to mind in this speculation. The superposition is all potential / possible states abstractly existing WITHOUT any kind of observer. When any kind of observation / measurement / verification is made is when all other possible states also come into a parallel existence of their own?
But what is the point of these speculations? It's kind of silly to me, because we can't come to a definite conclusion one way or another. It seems to me that it all just ends up as though experiments. It's kind of fun for a while, if we don't go overboard speculating without being able to come to any firm conclusions. If I were to speculate more, I wonder in the context of things the C's have said, that chaos is a prerequisite to creation. Like on the subatomic level, this chaotic state of affairs where nothing is fixed is necessary to how information from higher levels comes into our reality (interacting with our consciousness / awareness / perceptions, etc.). As if that is a requirement for our 3D physical world to manifest.
Finally, no matter how you cut it, you can't reasonably interpret quantum theory to mean that objective reality doesn't exist. Put it this way, no matter how weird the quantum world seems, it's exactly how the Universe / Macro-Cosmos as a whole sees itself whatever is happening wherever in the parallel universes / multiverses. So, I don't at all get the impression that quantum theory implies there's no such thing as objective reality in any of its interpretations. If anything, I get the impression that no matter what, we on our level are very subjective in comparison TO Objective Reality. Does that make sense or clear some things up?
Also things might work in a similar way on the macro scale as they do on the micro scale, it just takes MUCH more "time" for the probability / wave function collapse to become actualized in any given universe....
13 Twirling Triskeles said:MissK. Reply #333 on: Today at 05:04:15 PM said:I never understood this. To me it has nothing to do with what I (or anybody) think, if the cat is dead or alive.
No matter if I think it is dead, if it is alive it will be in a panic wanting to get out of the box, and no matter of how much I believe it is dead will change that...
It has always seemed like nonsense to me to claim that the cat is both dead and alive, just because we don't know what it is before opening the box...I'm pretty sure the cat knows if it is alive,
....but since a lot of intelligent people go "wow" about the theory, I suspect that I'm wrong to think that it is nonsense
Miss K. --- LOLOL :) I know. I was thinking exactly that myself. I think what Bohr is saying is that UNTIL we actually check the cat's condition, then we cannot state truthfully whether the cat is dead or alive. The cat's condition remains a mystery to US -- not a mystery to the cat -- or to the Universe? Both the cat and the Universe know the truth -- because they are both observing the cat's condition. We, on the other hand, cannot observe the cat, and therefore do not know for certain its condition, UNTIL we open the box and observe the cat ourselves. In the meantime, until we open that box and observe the cat, the cat is actually in all possible states simultaneously (from our human perspective?) and will remain so as long as we don't look to check. Which actually does make sense when I think about it.
Leave the cyanide capsule out of the equation. Pretend someone handed us a box. We're told there's a cat inside the box. We're told the cat might be dead or alive. That person doesn't know the Cat's condition either. It could be sleeping. It could be anesthetized. It could be injured and unable to move about. So there's no clue for us to draw any truthful conclusion. We would be guessing. Until we opened the box and observed the cat ourselves and could determine whether the cat is dead, alive, drugged, anesthetized, injured, frozen in fear, or perfectly content to be boxed up and moved about.
And during all the time that passes until we open that box and observe the cat, Bohr is saying that the Cat is actually in all possible states simultaneously -- as long as we don't look to check. Not because the Cat is indeed objectively and truthfully in all possible states simultaneously -- but only from our perspective -- until we have verified the Cat's condition via observation which satisfies our own assessment.
I need to ask SeekinTruth and others if what I've stated is indeed the correct understanding. I could be off base here so I don't want to be promoting lies, please.
If my understanding is correct, I'm left with the distinct impression that this Theory is dependent on human perception, human measurement, human observation. Without the human factor, the entire Theory falls to pieces, yes? If we delete the human factor, there's no question that both the Cat and the Universe know the truth of the Cat's condition. Neither the Cat nor the Universe needs a Human Being to observe the Cat's condition in order for the Cat to be either dead or alive. Neither are dependent upon Humans in order for objective truth to exist because objective truth, as I understand it, and as I think Miss K. is also stating, is totally independent of human observation, verification, confirmation, belief, opinion, testing, studying, or measurements.
If that weren't true, then the Universe would cease to exist if human beings ceased to exist. And we know that's poppycock.
It's difficult to read this stuff and understand it. I had to write it out myself to see where the logic falls into a ditch. Which is probably why mathematicians put this stuff into equations -- because it gets too confusing when written in words and it's difficult to explain it in words -- which is why I was having such a difficult time understanding this stuff when I was reading it on that website. When I wrote it out, however, I began to make sense of it. That is I think I did. I'll need others to verify that. I may very well be wrong and if so, I need some clarification and correction.
And all this only pertains to The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory and leaves out any consideration of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Q-Theory.
Whew! I need a brain fix -- a cigarette. :) C ya later.
Thank you very much 13 Twirling Triskeles for your explanation, if the Quantum theory is just this thing about the cat or not the cat it is perfect, i can understand a little more... ;) I can understand these two or maybe 3 options or realities. I can understand that till I don't open the box I don't know the reality of the cat in front of me. He can be dead elsewhere, in another dimension, but in my dimension he can be or dead or alive. So objectivity is important. Ok. I am right? So is the theory of Quantum a theory of objectivity?
Just to laugh a little: cats are very intelligent, they will never, ever eat cyanide. or anything like that. :)
davey72 said:
davey72,
I think Laura's link to Ark's material covers the role of the "information" part of information theory very well here: Session 4 April 2015
And "Information Theory" is covered in CHAPTER 38: INFORMATION THEORY & CONSCIOUSNESS in Pierre and Laura's book:
Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection: The Secret History of the World - Book 3 by Pierre Lescaudron; Laura Knight-Jadczyk
It can be purchased on Amazon: _http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Changes-Human-Cosmic-Connection/dp/1897244975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429663790&sr=1-1&keywords=Earth+Changes+and+the+Human+Cosmic+Connection
Maybe you can fill us in on the "conduit" connection.
Sol Logos
The Living Force
Alvalsen said:/ do not know where to put it, let it be here /
I do not know, it really is an Egyptian fresco?
but her real state of affairs in society
reptile run by priests, the priests ruled by kings, kings lead people to war
reptiles hold hands, they are whole, priests hold hands, they are also a whole
it is interesting that in the text of the reptiles and the priests
as this fresco survived? why it is not destroyed?
It's a good artwork, probably done on Photoshop. Not sure who the artist is but here are a couple of others in the series.
13 Twirling Triskeles
Jedi Master
13 Twirling Triskeles Reply #339 on: Yesterday at 12:40:24 AM said:
Divide By ZeroReply #341 on: Yesterday at 02:19:37 AM said:
Divide By Zero -- Well, I’m wondering why science declares/presumes/assumes that “matter” of any kind does NOT have consciousness. Because they believe that “matter” came into being all by itself? Materialist oriented scientists reject the possibility that matter arises from anything “conscious”? Therefore, anything conscious or having consciousness could/would not be objective? Which results in this? — That because Human Beings have consciousness, their observations cannot be objective? But an electron, having no consciousness, CAN be objective? My mind reels!!
Your statements bringing in the 4D aspects are a huge relief. That makes this Quantum Theory concept make much more sense to me. I hadn’t even considered the 4D connection. More helpful to expand the possibilities to include 4D than to contract and constrict to 3D only. So thanks a bunch for that, Divide By Zero. Whew! Sigh of relief. :)
13 Twirling Triskeles on Yesterday at 12:40:24 AM said:
voyageur Reply #342 on: Yesterday at 07:15:08 AM said:
Miss.K Reply #343 on: Yesterday at 07:32:51 AM said:
Miss.K — Too true. Boo on me. :( I was being inexcusably rude. I apologize. This doesn’t get me off the hook by any means, but the truth is that I was becoming so depressed over my inabiity to grasp this Quantum Theory — especially after watching those videos — that I felt like throwing in the towel and giving up even attempting to understand it.
But I thought, well, maybe I shouldn’t just give up because what if there’s a good reason to learn and understand Quantum Theory besides satisfying my own selfish curiosity and interest in learning it? So, basically, it’s been an exercise in STS on my part from the beginning. The questions I asked that you replied to were said in a fit of pique (an irritation with my own failure to get it).
Sorry for being such a brat. And thank you for pointing it out. I will make an effort to put the brakes on and restrain myself in future. :)
voyageur — Very true. Even as I was typing out those stupid questions, I was already realizing everything you said in your post.
And you’re absolutely correct when you say this, to wit:
voyageur said:
I’m one of those elderly people who are gaining understanding and challenging myself like never before. Just attempting to understand Quantum Theory alone is verification of that.
As I said to Miss K., I was just feeling frustrated at being unable to understand it. My frustration is directed at myself — not at anybody here on the Forum. Well, I am also irritated at the positions of Materialist Scientists. Their dead-matter universe feels like a dead-end to me.
Sorry for the distraction. I’m feeling much better now after reading through Ark’s material which Laura linked to. I guess I should know myself better by this time. Even if I think I’m giving up, I really never actually do. I’ve always persisted past my own self-made obstacles. Oftentimes being angry, irritated, or annoyed makes me even more determined to persist. I just suffered a temporary set-back when confronted by a brick wall.
Thanks to all the members of this Forum who have clues and info that help me/us find a way around those Brick Walls.
13 Twirling Triskeles
Jedi Master
Laura said:
OMG -- Thank you for that link, Laura. And thank you Ark for writing so lucidly -- so that even I can better grasp this subject of Quantum Theory -- especially as you've written a larger context within which to place this Theory. I particularly liked this part -- to wit:
Ark at -- http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/pm1.htm -- said:
* * * * *
BRAVO!!
and 
13 Twirling Triskeles
Jedi Master
SeekinTruth — I hope you won’t mind if I copy only the portions of your reply that I’d like to address?
Thank you - thank you - thank you. Got it. (Including all the snipped portions of your reply)
I’d like to respond to the penultimate (next-to-last) paragraph of your Reply #350 — which states:
reasonably you say? Yes, I agree. And I agree with the remainder of that paragraph as well. Which is why the red portion of the quote below which I copied from the whatis.techtarget website seems a bit weird, yes? Because it seems as if the author or this piece IS claiming that Bohr is declaring that objective reality does NOT exist. Unless the author is mis-interpreting Bohr — or I am mis-understanding the author? I feel a bit confused.
Sorry to be picking so many nits? Should I just let it rest? Does it matter to anyone other than myself to get this detail cleared-up? Or is it an exercise in futility and waste of time and energy?
Using the definitions I copied from the Free Dictionary for reference to my next questions: to Wit:
Is the author of this article using the 2nd definition of Objective rather than the first when s/he claims that Bohr is saying that objective reality does not exist? That objectivity is non-existent when we do not know the state of any object because it is in all possible states simultaneously?
Because if the author was using the 1st definition of Objective, then neither s/he nor Bohr would be dismissing objective reality quite so cavalierly I would think, no?
* * * * *
Definitions for Objective from the Free Dictionary:
(the free dictionary . com/objective)
1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
4. Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?
5. Undistorted by emotion or personal bias.
6. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.
* * * * *
If I can’t feel some sort of resolution over this discrepancy about objective reality vis-a-vis the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, I’ll have to lean towards the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I would prefer to include both as possible interpretations. It seems as if the Copenhagen Interpretation has bowed itself off the stage — not that I’ve kicked it off for insubordinate behavior. Phooey.
Thanks for everyone’s patience.
SeekinTruth Reply #350 on: Yesterday at 02:11:38 PM said:
Thank you - thank you - thank you. Got it. (Including all the snipped portions of your reply)
I’d like to respond to the penultimate (next-to-last) paragraph of your Reply #350 — which states:
SeekinTruth Reply #350 on: Yesterday at 02:11:38 PM said:
reasonably you say? Yes, I agree. And I agree with the remainder of that paragraph as well. Which is why the red portion of the quote below which I copied from the whatis.techtarget website seems a bit weird, yes? Because it seems as if the author or this piece IS claiming that Bohr is declaring that objective reality does NOT exist. Unless the author is mis-interpreting Bohr — or I am mis-understanding the author? I feel a bit confused.
Sorry to be picking so many nits? Should I just let it rest? Does it matter to anyone other than myself to get this detail cleared-up? Or is it an exercise in futility and waste of time and energy?
Using the definitions I copied from the Free Dictionary for reference to my next questions: to Wit:
Is the author of this article using the 2nd definition of Objective rather than the first when s/he claims that Bohr is saying that objective reality does not exist? That objectivity is non-existent when we do not know the state of any object because it is in all possible states simultaneously?
Because if the author was using the 1st definition of Objective, then neither s/he nor Bohr would be dismissing objective reality quite so cavalierly I would think, no?
* * * * *
Definitions for Objective from the Free Dictionary:
(the free dictionary . com/objective)
1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
4. Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?
5. Undistorted by emotion or personal bias.
6. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.
* * * * *
If I can’t feel some sort of resolution over this discrepancy about objective reality vis-a-vis the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, I’ll have to lean towards the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I would prefer to include both as possible interpretations. It seems as if the Copenhagen Interpretation has bowed itself off the stage — not that I’ve kicked it off for insubordinate behavior. Phooey.
Thanks for everyone’s patience.
