Is it just me or is "Entanglement" stupid?

[cubbex]

Well, the only entanglement I see between the two coins is that they are made of metal.

If the soul is not attached to time, but its present reincarnation, which is us, which is the personality, only the personality is attached to time which has been described from the cs' and Mouravieff as a movie of different potentials, which put the basis of the needed experience for the individual.

If the soul is not attached to time, one can see the soul as the single photon or atom which created the big bang if such thing is real. So, in a sense, your soul is a potential already manifested through all types of realities, so it is up to the individual to fulfill whatever future reality the individual prefers. That does not mean, that those future existences do not exist already, they are like movies you prefer to experience, they are already manifested. But if the soul is ethereal which is not attached to time, is possible that the soul already exist in its maximum potential right before the last density which is 7th, so this soul has already evolved into a cassiopean or 6th density dude.

It is possible, that the Higher Centers is this entanglement between our present soul state and its already existing full potential in a very advanced type of being. And to work on the higher centers or to be taught by the higher self, is like this last analogy of transducers of such energies. So, I see magnetizing these higher centers in both ways, as above so below, one follows a path which tries to manifest the full growth and evolution of the soul, which is a unified thought form, which can be seen also as our little I's unified between themselves and all of their realities without any breaking the free will of these realities. It is just an idea, of course thinking based on these concepts can grow into cosmical stuff which sounds just... too weird.

Time is I guess, the law of seven which Mouravieff talks, but he interprets this law as deviation. It is just like sizing the life of a physical system cycle, which may be, that any physical system already has a predestined path which depends on (the combustion?) all the elements that form and animate that physical system.

My question is, where is the extact point of connection between the ethereal and the physical? is it the electromagnetic fields? the electrons? neutrinos? more?

 

[Deleted member 9511]

My question is, where is the extact point of connection between the ethereal and the physical? is it the electromagnetic fields? the electrons? neutrinos? more?

I would argue that it's contained in the perspective of the witness, and only in that perspective does it have any meaning. Otherwise, all such points-of-connection are imagined, and those same points can be just as easily seen as points-of-division, and that also is all about perspective.

 

[Palinurus]

My question is, where is the extact point of connection between the ethereal and the physical? is it the electromagnetic fields? the electrons? neutrinos? more?

I would argue that it's contained in the perspective of the witness, and only in that perspective does it have any meaning. Otherwise, all such points-of-connection are imagined, and those same points can be just as easily seen as points-of-division, and that also is all about perspective.

According to the C's, the personal connection between the ethereal and the physical goes through or via the pituitary gland:

Q: (A) Which part of a human extends into 4th density?

A: That which is effected by pituitary gland.

Q: (L) And what is that?

A: Psychic.

Q: (A) Are there some particular DNA sequences that facilitate transmission between densities?

A: Addition of strands.

Q: (L) How do you get added strands?

A: You don't get, you receive.

Q: (L) Where are they received from?

A: Interaction with upcoming wave, if vibration is aligned.

Q: (L) How do you know if this is happening?

A: Psychophysiological changes manifest.

Q: (L) Such as what?

A: Isn't Ark a part of this discussion?

Q: (L) Alright! I get the point! I was just trying to help. (A) I would like to know if there is a separate field beyond electromagnetism and gravitation, something similar to the Sheldrake concept of a morphological field or morphogenetic field?

A: Yes, and it is very close to that. It is apparent that Sheldrake was "in tune," as are you, Arkadiusz. But you must have faith in your thoughts, as sometimes they are assisted.

Q: (A) When you speak of an upcoming wave, it is a wave of what?

A: Think of it as a wave of reflection from the beginning and end point.

Q: (L) Can you clarify that in more 3rd density terms?

A: No, see what the response is. It is his question, after all!

Q: (A) Is DNA acting as a superconductor?

A: Yes!!!

Q: (L) Any other comments?

A: No.

Q: (A) [regarding wave] But what vibrates? Energy? Aether?

A: Energy and aether are directly symbiotic.

Q: (A) And when it vibrates, then in which dimension?

A: The density 3 and 4 at transition junction.

Q: (A) If not in linear time, then in what?

A: Cyclical "time."

Q: (A) What measures the distance between one crest and another?

A: Ending/beginning of cycle.

Q: (A) Trying to understand the universe in terms of a triality, matter - geometry - information. Is it the right idea?

A: If one thinks of matter as "living" rather than "dead."

Q: (L) Is that it?

A: Ark questioned.

Q: (L) Well, excuse me for trying to help here! (A) Is DNA superconducting?

A: Variably.

Q: (A) What is electricity?

A: In what sense?

Q: (A) What is elementary charge?

A: Elementary means basic construct, whether directly from the natural "state," or indirectly.

Q: (A) What type of entity?

A: Purely substantive, as in a binder.

Q: (A) A warp?

A: "Warp" is incomplete concept. Remember what we said about theory of relativity.

Q: (A) Must I understand the nature of superconductivity? It seems to me that I must.

A: Yes and yes, definitely.

As I don't understand fully what all this might mean, I searched for additional context and found some:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29886.msg384892.html#msg384892

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,18442.msg174253.html#msg174253

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25482.msg307510.html#msg307510

Hope this helps a bit. :)

 

[ark]

My question is, where is the extact point of connection between the ethereal and the physical? is it the electromagnetic fields? the electrons? neutrinos? more?

No one knows for sure. Probably Burkhard Heim proposed the most advanced theory, but it is still vague and incomplete.

 

[Nević Nenad]

My question is, where is the extact point of connection between the ethereal and the physical? is it the electromagnetic fields? the electrons? neutrinos? more?

I would argue that it's contained in the perspective of the witness, and only in that perspective does it have any meaning. Otherwise, all such points-of-connection are imagined, and those same points can be just as easily seen as points-of-division, and that also is all about perspective.

Thinking of this, and starting with the theory that everything is energy, so the aethereal must be too some form of energy (maybe self aware) I wanted to write that point of connection between the ethereal and the physical must be in circumstances when energy is closest to solid matter. But then on a half way a realized that is too materialistic. It looks there is the whole framework behind the energy (how the energy exactly works) of which we know nothing. We actually don't know what exactly is the energy, we can only "see" it when it is already manifested or when we measure it. Physical, electric, kinetic, all kind of force, even potential energy (as amount that probably would manifest). But all of those are just forms, or already manifested kinds (ways, forms) of the energy, that couldn't be the energy from 'everything is energy'?

Is there actually the energy that is omni present, not manifested, but existent? Is there something behind (or maybe more precise: before) the already manifested (or measured) forms of energy? I can easily imagine that is the popular: 'thought', or something like that, but even than we are missing the whole framework behind it. If it is the 'thought' (or something similar or popular like that :) ) what is the 'thought' then? The name is irrelevant . . .

 

[cubbex]

My question is, where is the extact point of connection between the ethereal and the physical? is it the electromagnetic fields? the electrons? neutrinos? more?

No one knows for sure. Probably Burkhard Heim proposed the most advanced theory, but it is still vague and incomplete.

Thanks Ark and Palinurus, Burkhard Heim and DNA might be a good start.

 

[Woodsman]

My head is just now recovering from a two day long headache.

During that time, and before, I've been wrestling with these concepts at length.

Those MIT videos, (see post #6 in this thread; thank-you, Archaea!) are really quite excellent; Allan Adams is fantastic speaker, charismatic and good at expressing his thoughts in a manner which is easy to follow. -Though regular pausing, reviewing, and drawing of my own diagrams and notes has been necessary in order to jam it all in my head. And I'm still only half-way through the second lecture of the series...)

But he's a good communicator, (unlike this other fellow, whose video I'm still having to struggle with in order to grasp. I'm not there yet. It may simply be that the math is confusing me and he's addressing a bunch of Google professionals and is making assumptions about the audience's base knowledge, which leaves guys like me scrambling.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

But I really want to understand his point, as he seems to be coming at QM with the same level of suspicion I'm finding myself afflicted with.

Anyway...

One thought struck me while working through this stuff...

All of the experimental systems described, the color/hardness boxes, mirrors and beam joiners, etc., seem to behave like Javascript code.

That is, there is no Time.

-In Javascript, one of the things which messed me up while trying to learn how to code with that language was that I made the mistake of thinking that the lines executed in sequence,.

But that's wrong. And this false assumption led me to write faulty code and to spend hours in bafflement as I tried to sort out why code I'd written which appeared intuitive and obvious to me was returning unexpected results and errors. In truth, the computer executes all of the code in a block of lines as though everything happened simultaneously.

That is, if in writing several lines of code, I change a value by keying in something like, "X = 5" half-way through a code block, I would falsely expect the computer to read up to that point, dutifully executing all the lines one after another until then, see the "X = 5" line and say to itself, "Oh! Okay, well from now on, X equals 5. No problem! Let's continue."

But that's not what happens. The computer reads the entire code block, doesn't execute any of it until it has the whole thing resolved in its silicone brain, and then it spits out the response as though every single line happened all at once. X doesn't change to 5 half way through the program. It is ALWAYS 5, right from the beginning.

Remove the concept of Time and Javascript starts to make sense. Quantum Mechanics, from what I've absorbed thus far, seems to carry the same property.

In reading Ouspensky's Tertium Organum, (which is also threatening to crack my head open; I'm about half-way through, able to crawl only a few pages at a time), but I'm thinking now of electrons as threads rather than moving points.

If you string a thread, (or a bunch of threads, even one after another, which is the same as all at once if there is no Time) through those quantum experimental box rigs, considering only the final state of the machine, (all the barriers cleverly added after each electron is launched, and similar convolutions are ignored; only the final resting state of the rig is considered), then you can see that the threads can only have made a single choice; things like Superpositions are dependent on the concept of Time, which we have been told is an illusion.

Those are my thoughts at the moment.

I still want to put more attention into the Double Slit problem from another angle. I don't feel as though I've got this nailed down yet, but I do feel like I'm getting close to something satisfactory.