Consciousness, Information and Measurements

[msasa79]

Prompted by a passage from Ark's blog post last Sunday, quoted below, and by story of mathematician A. Grothendieck in the article linked in that blog post, embarked on a quest to grok what "consciousness", "information", and "measurements" are, in a sense of finding useful and operable definitions of these concepts, and how they can be represented by mathematical and/or physical entities so to be able to apply standard mathematical and scientific 'operations' with and on them. Neither Grok nor other not-so-smart AI machines have shown to be helpful, at least to satisfactory enough level, in that endeavor.

Certainly time is not the same as space. Einstein and Minkowski merged space with time, but their reasoning was highly questionable. Maxwell equations were taken as a starting point. 10-parameters Poincare group came out rather easily as an invariance group, and it was set on a pedestal. It was given the absolute power over all other possible interactions, for no good reason. Then it was discovered that Maxwell equations are invariant under the 15-parameters conformal group, containing the Poincare group as a subgroup leaving the "conformal infinity" (Dupin cyclide) as the unmoved "absolute", but it didn't help us with understanding the nature of time. Is time "real" or "imaginary"? Or both? There is a lot that needs to be done in physics before jumping ahead into the future of fancy mathematics with no "yes-no" dichotomy. Some physicists promote the view that the universe is a quantum computer - like it would explain anything. It does not explain anything at all, it just sweeps problems under the carpet, since we do not understand what quantum theory is about. Quantum theory does not explain consciousness. We need to understand what "consciousness", "information", and "measurements" are first. Then, perhaps, we will be able to get some idea about quantum theory, the theory of "measurements".

Initially started the discussion in the Comment section of the blog, but judging by the reception and replies so far, that's not gonna go anywhere, and it would take quite a lot of 'transferring' and more so explaining the specific content and context that's already been done in great deal on the Forum, in the C's sessions, and supportive literature like Pierre's book ECHCC. So decided to open the thread in hope of 'receiving' help from members here. The relevant comments for this kick-off from Ark's blog would be quoted below.

Of course, if all this was already processed and addressed somewhere, and I missed it, apologies for 'noising' and please direct me to relevant and appropriate source, thread, posts or literature. If not, then please join me in this quest and in elucidating and 'codifying' these apparently very important concepts for gaining knowledge and understanding of the being and in a sense very existence in the world we live in.

First and 'opening' comment below relies on the exchange with the C's in the session of May 28th 2013.

Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?

A: Different concentrations of truth.

Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?

A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.

Measurement in its broad sense can be viewed as an observation, which presupposes an observer, that in its broad sense includes consciousness of some sort. Our other sources indicated that information arranged by truth becomes consciousness, which puts information as a foundational element of that set of concepts.

Leaving aside the usual approach to information like information theory or physical notion of entropy, went to see the etymology of that word, and arrived at its Latin "components" which in short give the meaning like that which gives shape or form, or in its broad sense that which creates or simply "creator". And the "creator" meaning includes all sorts of things, it creates the existence of something, as in material and ethereal or abstract like an idea, and it also creates the existence of relations and relationships between or among these "created" things.

In a very real sense it can be said that information is a fibre of the whole Creation, the prima materia of the Existence. It does not need space or time to reside in, it creates space and time if needed. It is maybe a bit strange to comprehend because we are used to have something as a sort of a stage where things dwell in or on, and information does not need such a stage as it is the "material" of its own out of which everything is created, including various "stages".

Pierre used the term Information Field for describing the texture of the Universe and Creation, which at some point I was nitpicking about. At the end of the day, it basically comes down to the same things, with only maybe tiny differences in details. And as Ark points out repeatedly, the devil often hides in those details.

One of the Pierre's ideas and hypotheses that particularly rubbed me the wrong way was that we and other living beings connect to the Information Field by exchanging biophotons with it. With the view presented in the comment above, there would be no need for that, as we and everything else in the Creation, not just living beings, would be made of information or the Information Field to use Pierre's term.

I personally would not use the term field in relation to information as a fundamental structural fibre of the Creation, as it already presupposes an arrangement of some kind and relationships among the information/fibres making it, if viewed from the mathematical point of view, or a space where it resides if taken from scientific or physical perspective of a field. As explained in the comment, there would be no need for that also, and if the information would be "arranged" in some kind of a mathematical or algebraic structure like a field, which would presumably be the truth, then this "field" would already become consciousness, if we adopt the hypothesis that "information arranged by truth becomes consciousness".
In other words, the term Information Field would be kind of a misnomer for the Universal or Divine Consciousness or simply God, sort of "hiding" the fact that the Creation or Universe is conscious, and made of information which do not necessarily need to be arranged into just a field, but maybe even in some sort of a complex geometric algebra type of an arrangement.

For starters, I'm completely fine with what have written in previous comments about the information as a fabric of everything, that is as a creative fibre of Creation, in the broadest sense and all possible meanings.

Any narrowing of the "definition":
'that which gives shape, that which gives form, that which gives existence or simply that which creates',
seems to leave something out or to reduce the scope in the sense that something is "preceding" the information in the overall existence.

But, of course, I might also be completely wrong in this reasoning.

If that 'definition' is acceptable, we can proceed with finding suitable representation.

One possibility that crossed the mind that might be handy, in a way, has been to use the point as a representative of (most basic) information. When babbled about the point some time ago, one of the replies got was that point is a non-thing, which seems to perfectly suit the purpose for representing information as an atom or foundation of everything. It is something, but not exactly a thing to get hands on it, just like an information. Usually the "bit" is considered to be an unit of information, at that's fine from the point of view of quantifying it, but it's not particularly useful for representing it, especially from the perspective of geometry and arrangement of information by truth so that it can become consciousness, which is one of the aims of this quest and endeavor.

The point has mathematical dimension 0, which is not a number according to the C's and also represents (perfect) balance, so it would not be burdened with additional meaning or information except of that of its existence. It just is, nothing else. There would be no need for anything else for it to exist and be, no need for space or time, in fact both space and time are made of points, and in a broad sense it can be said that everything is made of points. Seems to perfectly suit the purpose of representing information out of which everything is made.

If these are acceptable definition and representation of an information, we could proceed with an arrangement by truth so to reach the same for consciousness. But before going there, leaving first this part about information open with an invitation for discussion, comments, suggestions, criticism or whatever else crosses the mind that might bring us closer to more objective and truthful assessment of the reality we inhabit.

 

[msasa79]

It was not very kind and considerate to reach the point and just leave it hanging there, when the first concept of the subject is consciousness, which frankly speaking was not even touched upon properly in that opening post.

So, the question presented is how to come to consciousness from a pointy information. The adopted statement from the C's tells us that information arranged by truth becomes consciousness. There are other suggestions shared by the C's which might illuminate the path to consciousness even more, and they might be quoted as we proceed on our journey, but let's pause for a moment and see what additional information this "information arranged by truth" statement brings to the table.

Arrangement in its broad sense means that we have at least another point in relation to that initial point of information from which to build a consciousness. And it makes sense to have more than just one point of information, let's say an existence of something or being, because consciousness as in being aware or being conscious obviously has sort of a pair of information as its configuration, its very being and the awareness of it. There's very probably an infinite number of ways in which awareness can be obtained, just like there's infinite number of points between any two of them or like there's an infinite number of lines or rays that can be drawn through any existing point, but to keep it simple and dandy let's stay at our pair.

So, a consciousness has at least a point of being and the awareness or the knowledge of the being. Knowledge and Being, just like the title of Laura's video series on Cassiopaea.org YT channel. The thing is, this pair is basically like one, as the knowledge of the being is seated in the very being, illuminating it and making it known to itself and others, thus creating consciousness out of pure information about its being. So, in a sense, the pair is just one point, the point of being, while the other point, the one of awareness or of knowledge, is like an atmosphere or a fluid encompassing and fulfilling the point of being.

Obviously, mathematical point as a zero dimensional object is not suited for this new picture to faithfully and truthfully represent our newly informed being anymore. We could go about this like; ok, there're two points, implicitly suggesting a line already, a one dimensional mathematical object, and they are basically one point, so that line starts and ends in the same place, further suggesting a circle or maybe better call it a ring, which basically encompasses a surface called circle, now already a two dimensional mathematical geometrical object. But, maybe better than this kind of barren materialistic approach, we might call upon Cassiopaea and use "knowledge is light is love" kind of motto in our construction of consciousness from information arranged by truth. Maybe the comment in quote box below might be a bit closer to the truth that just going from a point to line to circle.

As consciousness includes the faculty of self-reflection it means that it has knowledge how to do it, i.e. has information or light, and to implement it, it creates a new point "from" where to do it. So initial point radiates outward illuminating its surroundings, informing or creating new points around itself, kind of like an expanding light sphere creating space. It can be viewed as an observation. Since between two adjacent points, which form the basis of a line or a ray, there can be placed infinite number of new points, it can be said that the ray from the origin represents an outward flow of information or simply a current. Each ray of information current creates its magnetic field around it which is representative of newly informed points on its path performing their observations. When all these observations align, that is information or points are truthfully arranged, a "global" magnetic field is sustained by the flow of the information between all informed points in this newly created space, creating sort of an envelope around the origin representing a newly informed domain in overall "resonance", or a consciousness unit. And magnetic field is basically just like light, which can be represented by an electromagnetic wave or particle of electromagnetic field energy.

Several additional exchanges with the C's and deductions stemming from them and other discussions were utilized in the content of the comment above. For example, that "gravity and magnetism are born of the same source" (Aug 15th 1998) and that gravity is akin to observer or observation, implying that magnetism also rises from observation, and that observation is like an exchange of information which can be represented as a flow or a stream or a current of points basically, or a ray of light, if we adopt the premise that points represent information, enabling the analogy with electricity and magnetic field it creates around itself.

If there would be interest for going further and deeper into the subject than it's presented so far, the quotes from the sessions will be there. At this point, it seems there would be no need for that as it would make this post longer and probably even less attractive to read than it already is.

As an inviting remarks for discussion, it's perhaps useful to point out that "space" of being informed by the light or knowledge (and kinda enveloped by the electromagnetic field or in an envelope of light) is not necessarily the usual material three dimensional space used in physics, but primarily the immaterial space of information, where their specific configurations or arrangements by truth become (part of) consciousness units as light beings, as for the statements from the C's that information is recorded by and resides in consciousness (May 29th 2021). And since without truth consciousness fractures and disintegrates (May 28th 2013), information alone is just like a floating point in this "space of darkness" or like a potential droplet in the ocean of the Divine Consciousness or the Divine Cosmic Mind, "waiting" to be illuminated or observed by knowledge or light or simply embraced into the being by true Love.

 

[msasa79]

When asked about the densities, the C's were rather direct in their answer (April 23rd 2022):

(Ark) What are densities?

A: States of awareness in interaction with information.

As Ark's been doing great job in sculpting the states in the context of algebra on his blog, here we'll take a look at the density from the perspective of information as potential points in space and of consciousness as arrangement or 'configuration' in that space, as described in previous posts. And rather than hammering things into a specific shape, an illustration will be presented to get an idea how things might appear in reality, physical reality at least.

A prototypical 1D being might be represented by an atom, so let's take a look at the simplest of atoms, hydrogen one. A hydrogen atom is composed of a proton as nucleus in its center and an electron running and spinning like crazy around it, in simple so called Bohr's model of an atom. Its physical size is usually given by so called Bohr's radius (wiki), a₀ ~ 5×10^-11 m.
On the same Wikipedia page, we see that a classical electron radius is roughly 20.000 smaller, i.e. r_e = α² a₀, where α=1/137 is a fine-structure constant, that is r_e ~ 3×10^-15 m (~ 3 fm). Experimentally has been determined that classical proton radius (wiki) is about 3 times smaller, 0.8-0.9 fm. Without going into too much details let's just say that these classical radii represent the sizes of electrons and protons if they're considered to be like balls or spheres.

As these numbers and exponents probably don't mean much to average layman, here's that illustration mentioned in the above passage.
If we visualize hydrogen atom like a 1 meter (in diameter) sized ball or better a 1 m large sphere, proton ball as nucleus in its center would be roughly wide like a thin human hair and electron ball on the outskirts of this 1 m large atomic hydrogen sphere would be about as large as a thick human hair. That's how dense the prototypical 1D being seems to be, in the context of its physically illuminated informational content or consciousness informational 'configuration' that the space is apparently aware of.

Of course, this illustration used rounded numbers, not exact calculations, just to give an idea what we might be talking about.
In the same approximation, as the volume goes with R³, we see that a hydrogen atom would comprise about 10 trillions electrons or protons inside of it, if those huge vasts of apparently empty space inside our 1 m wide sphere would be appropriately filled with very thin human hairs. Interestingly, a human body is composed of roughly similar number of cells, but in the volume (~ 65 L) that would correspond to a half meter wide sphere (link; V_sphere = 4/3 π R³), which might give an idea how much denser, in physical terms, an average human body might be, compared to prototypical 1D object in material sense.

If someone wants to see different tiny sizes, like those of various cells, here's a nice interactive representation:

Cell Size and Scale

Genetic Science Learning Center

learn.genetics.utah.edu

Wanted to expand the illustration by using numbers and sizes for DNA double helix, but couldn't find reliable sources and references online about how large the coiled DNA helix would be, like curled in a ball in a cell, if that would an appropriate representation, and also about other numbers and sizes concerning the geometry and the structure of that curled DNA ball.

So, if there are members better versed in these DNA things, a link or a reference would be appreciated, as it might be fun to see how those numbers would compare to the above illustration of hydrogen atom density levels.

 

[axj]

Very interesting ideas, especially in your first two posts. There is already a longer thread (where Ark participates too) about these topics:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/some-comments-on-information-theory.51198/

So maybe merging this thread with the other one is a good idea and it is likely that more people who have been looking into these topics will see your comments there.

 

[John G]

Here's a related session quote (10/22/22):

(L) Okay, so... That's good enough. Was he onto something with his Syntergic Theory?

A: Yes, but he missed a lot. His understanding of information as fractal did not take into account the field nature of the phenomenon.

Q: (L) So it's the field that contains all the information and not a tiny point?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And a fractal is... You get smaller and smaller and smaller, but...

(Pierre) I think true fractals like biophoton fractal patterns that you reach a deeper and deeper information...

(L) From our 3D reality you reach deeper and deeper into the information field. But...

(Pierre) It's just a hypothesis on my part.

(L) Okay, phrase the question.

(Pierre) Do the fractal patterns emitted by biophotons, emitted by proteins, enable a deeper access to the information field?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And is a fractal as we see and understand one in our reality... Ya know, we see it as a shape or pattern. Is that only representative of something that can't actually be otherwise represented in our reality in any other way - that it's far more complex?

A: Yes

 

[msasa79]

Very interesting ideas, especially in your first two posts. There is already a longer thread (where Ark participates too) about these topics:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/some-comments-on-information-theory.51198/

So maybe merging this thread with the other one is a good idea and it is likely that more people who have been looking into these topics will see your comments there.

Thanks.
Regarding the thread merging, I trust the mods to know what's best.
This is not really about information theory, as stated in the Comment #1 quote box in the first post here, but about interrelation between information and consciousness, awareness and measurement or observation, and better understanding of those concepts in an attempt to build a usable definitions for possibly further describing interactions. We'll see how it goes.

Here's a related session quote (10/22/22):

Thanks for the session quote.
It made me think about the term "deeper" as a measure of dimension of depth, in relation to information and information field and consciousness, which I am not sure how to incorporate with the scientific or physical definition or meaning of a field and neither in algebraic or mathematical structure of a field.
Do you have any idea how to see and interpret "depth" and "deep-deeper" in that context?

 

[axj]

Regarding the thread merging, I trust the mods to know what's best.
This is not really about information theory, as stated in the Comment #1 quote box in the first post here, but about interrelation between information and consciousness

The other thread is exactly about that, interrelation of information and consciousness, and so on.

 

[msasa79]

The other thread is exactly about that, interrelation of information and consciousness, and so on.

Well, in that case, the mods can merge this thread with that one. I had only occasionally followed that thread and didn't go through it completely, but remembered that when it started it was more about the information in almost exclusive context of information theory and physical concept of entropy, while lately it was about math ideas like infinite series and such.

The direction here has been conceived to go towards something like a multidimensional point as a representative of information, which is kind of a paradoxical thing in itself as point is regarded as a 0-dimensional not-a-thing.
The multidimensionality would enable us to talk about the depth of a particular information and information field in general, which would come into play in interaction with consciousness, which is made of information, just like everything else is (April 23rd 2022, quoted below), in a sense that actualization of these multiple dimensions of information would depend on the meaning ascribed to it by the consciousness interacting with it. Kind of like a point with potential whole net of relations (to other points for example) or dimensions behind it, depending on the perceived meaning of information in question.

(Ark) What is information?

A: All.

An interesting representative example might be the information expressed by the word Yes.
Of its own, it looks like a rather shallow information or in math terms barely 1-dimensional one. But when put in the context, for example as an answer by the C's to a specific question, it can contain the whole world of meaning behind its point-like surface.

Another example of different meanings behind the same word as information representative is language, that is how the meaning of a specific word as information can change depending on the human consciousness interacting with it.
Yes in Czech is Ano which is quite similar to its opposite for an English speaking person, and in German is Ja which for ex-Yu people means I, while I for ex-Yu people means And which is really frustrating when writing in an app like Word that is fond of capitalizing every solitary "i" there is in the text, and you can imagine how often the word And gets used in most languages.

With this in mind, do you still think it would be better to merge this thread with that one, or maybe work here together from sort of a scratch without the baggage of that thread, to have or maybe better said create something kind of a new and usable to define consciousness that becomes into being from information arranged by truth, and also interacts with information by sort of giving it meaning (or accessing the multiple dimensions of meaning depending on the awareness of their possible existence) and in such a way kind of shapes the reality in which it resides, like densities as "States of awareness in interaction with information." (April 23rd 2022, quoted in post above)?

Edit: Added part in (...) about awareness of multiple meanings residing in specific information actualizing its multiple dimensions.

 

[John G]

Thanks.
Regarding the thread merging, I trust the mods to know what's best.
This is not really about information theory, as stated in the Comment #1 quote box in the first post here, but about interrelation between information and consciousness, awareness and measurement or observation, and better understanding of those concepts in an attempt to build a usable definitions for possibly further describing interactions. We'll see how it goes.


Thanks for the session quote.
It made me think about the term "deeper" as a measure of dimension of depth, in relation to information and information field and consciousness, which I am not sure how to incorporate with the scientific or physical definition or meaning of a field and neither in algebraic or mathematical structure of a field.
Do you have any idea how to see and interpret "depth" and "deep-deeper" in that context?

This thread is fine with me; the person who started that thread kind of likes new starts I think via her use of different names like at Ark's blog too. I think the idea is your biophotons from the pituitary gland or DNA antennas help with entanglement in time with things like the Cs photons. More entanglement in time with higher density photons is deeper maybe in the sense of getting past the more local not so interesting interference like dead dudes or even less interesting photons maybe? The things Laura had to do to get to the Cs kind of gives clues since receivership more directly like is normal for 4th density is perhaps similar.

 

[Menna]

Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?

A: Different concentrations of truth.

Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?

A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.

The above bolded part of the answer by the C’s reiterates what I have learned over the past roughly 2 years in my refunded/specific study of pure unfiltered consciousness interacting/how it fits with this reality, humans and the system we are in. Meaning the objective of each individual awareness/soul/consciousness here is to lower entropy which increases order thus needing to arrange EVERYTHING by truth/objectivity. Within the latter part of the answer the Cs talk about “without truth/order/objectivity and “disintegration” this relates to de evolvement or raising ones entropy thus fracturing one’s individual unit of consciousness. Thus the human makes quality of CONSCIOUSNESS free will decisions moving toward truth objectivity or neutral decisions remaining still/idle (can’t remain here for long) or higher entropy decisions/false/lies/fractured decisions.

Information and consciousness IMO are married and fundamental however matter is only fundamental in the reality that it exists in as consciousness exists inside and outside of this 3D reality however a rock in 3D is not the same in other realities and may not exists outside of physical matter realities however information/conscousness does.

The human avatar consciousness awareness unit organizes information with this physical matter reality either evolving/lowering entropy/organizing truths or stagnating/neutral/idiling or de evolving raising entropy disorder

The above is organized based on consciousness knowledge gained in response to the Cs answer to bring a more practice story into reality…

The larger consciousness system is within and without matter is not we interact with the larger consciousness system through intellect emotions and actions/decision making/creating the quality of this is up to you

 

[Menna]

The point has mathematical dimension 0, which is not a number according to the C's and also represents (perfect) balance, so it would not be burdened with additional meaning or information except of that of its existence. It just is, nothing else. There would be no need for anything else for it to exist and be, no need for space or time, in fact both space and time are made of points, and in a broad sense it can be said that everything is made of points. Seems to perfectly suit the purpose of representing information out of which everything is made.

It is said that this represents “done reality” the consciousness is not “logged on” not plugged in. There is no space time because there is no realm, there is no matter there is no virtual reality for consciousness to evolve, create, there is no “rule set” no rules in that O thus your senses can’t be plugged into anything. You mentioned about learning about this reality and also talk about consciousness they are not one and the same .. The stadium is not the sport, the sport exists outside the stadium, the grocery/food store is not the food it exists outside it same goes for conscousness and this 3D earth reality that YOUR individual consciousness is currently logged onto and aware of inside your human avatar with senses plugged into this physical matter reality. Without this physical matter reality without your human body consciousness still exists…

It is VERY interesting that the Cs say density is about awareness and awareness information … We are in this 3D meaning we are in a certain type/kind of information this is not variable as we exist in a rule set governed by existence rules HOWEVER what is not constant is our awareness that can evolve or de evolve

It seems you want to learn about TWO separate things 1) Consciousness 2) This current reality you are in. These two things INTERACT with each other but they are not the same this specific physical reality exists as it is in itself and can’t go outside itself…Consciousness is fundamental and permeates within and without this reality

Seperate the two and you will learn FASTER according to physical matter time measurement… There are also other physical matter realities with different existence rule sets.

Get the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle- it talks about 5/6 things that are finely tuned for existence to be thus the rules…consciousness plays/interacts/creates/evolves/de evolves within the rule set/reality

O = no reality it does exist however there’s no physical matter there’s nothing to do no breathing, no feeling, no seeing, no interacting …

 

[Menna]

The multidimensionality would enable us to talk about the depth of a particular information and information field in general, which would come into play in interaction with consciousness, which is made of information, just like everything else is (April 23rd 2022, quoted below), in a sense that actualization of these multiple dimensions of information would depend on the meaning ascribed to it by the consciousness interacting with it. Kind of like a point with potential whole net of relations (to other points for example) or dimensions behind it, depending on the perceived meaning of information in question.

Yes, we can pontificate about other/different information fields/realities/rule sets however unless you phase out of this information field and experience another it’s just conjecture for the most part. Our individuals conscousness is within this 3D information field within a 3D body with awareness. The other information fields and knowing about them is a fun exercise however our consciousness chose to be in this Earth information field.

For example I have read/researched that 4D reality information field is more thought based and not as physical as 3D what you think of appears easily there is less of a delay for example if you think of a chair and want one you either buy the material and create one or go to the store and buy one in this 3D reality in 4th…You think of one.

However, it’s probably more important to learn all you can about this 3D information field so you can evolve your consciousness so you can then log onto/are allowed to be aware the systems gives you the ability to be aware in another hopefully “higher” more organized/truth information field

 

[msasa79]

Yes, we can pontificate about other/different information fields/realities/rule sets however unless you phase out of this information field and experience another it’s just conjecture for the most part. Our individuals conscousness is within this 3D information field within a 3D body with awareness. The other information fields and knowing about them is a fun exercise however our consciousness chose to be in this Earth information field.

For example I have read/researched that 4D reality information field is more thought based and not as physical as 3D what you think of appears easily there is less of a delay for example if you think of a chair and want one you either buy the material and create one or go to the store and buy one in this 3D reality in 4th…You think of one.

However, it’s probably more important to learn all you can about this 3D information field so you can evolve your consciousness so you can then log onto/are allowed to be aware the systems gives you the ability to be aware in another hopefully “higher” more organized/truth information field

Well, in this our views differ; I see only one information field encompassing all, while the awareness of consciousness wave reading units and their beings determine how they interact with it and which "layers" or density they connect to.
FWIW.

 

[Menna]

Well, in this our views differ; I see only one information field encompassing all, while the awareness of consciousness wave reading units and their beings determine how they interact with it and which "layers" or density they connect to.
FWIW.

We don’t determine which layer/density we connect to as we are in 3D are connect to that layer. Now I am not saying other information from other layer/densities can’t “bleed through” at times but when I talk about these things I talk in majority meaning 50.01%+ of the time our wave reading consciousness unit interacts with 3D layer/density as we are plugged into this 3D density.

There may be an all encompassing information field however there is also an all encompassing ocean and when you swim in the Pacific Ocean you are in the all encompassing ocean or are you in the pacific? We are having a specific consciousness experience because we and the system at the time of reincarnation from 5D believed this 3D 50.01+% of the time information field was the best place to evolve our individual consciousness and thus the larger consciousness system.

The system or I guess information field is ONE do that is correct but here and now in time space we are experiencing a certain aspect fragment of it…This IS reality the one information field exists but it’s not our physical reality.

We are granted or allowed access to the densities we can’t just go to a different rule set at our whims so YES there is one information field but from a practical standpoint we are here and now in this fragmented part of the one just like our individual unit of consciousness is one with the larger consciousness but we are here now logged on aware of this density…..I’m not sure we differ I just might be talking more practical and specific than broad and esoteric

 

[axj]

@Menna, many of the things you are stating as facts we do not really know for sure. What the C's or someone else said should be treated as theories, not something to form a belief system with. The fact that the early sessions where a lot of the 'big questions' were discussed were only about 70% correct according to the C's means that we cannot take any of their answers as the absolute truth. It is better to stay open to all possibilities and viewpoints regarding things we do not know for sure, while using our discernment and networking to decide which ones seem more likely.