Session 18 May 2024

[iamthatis]

If everything is consciousness, there's nothing left to prove, because consciousness can't be proven, it can only be experienced! The only question is, is our consciousness sufficiently awake, deployed and expanded to experience this consciously at all levels?

Si tout est conscience, il n'y a plus rien à prouver car la conscience ne se prouve pas, elle se vit ! Seule question, notre conscience est-elle suffisamment éveillée, déployée, expansée pour vivre cela consciemment à tous les niveaux? ​

Yeah, the good old 'There is only The One'. Spinoza wrote about this - that there is only one Substance. This substance has infinitely many attributes. This substance is God or nature (Deus Sive Natura or 'God is Nature'). Each of these attributes express the divine essence. And all else is a mode of the one substance. But then, as is usual with philosophers, it's pretty tricky to understand what exactly he means by these words.

Gurdjieff, too - there is the Ray of Creation, which differentiates according to the schemas he outlines such as the worlds within worlds. He also gets pretty tricky with his nested pentads, or levels of Being, as outlined in J.G. Bennet's Gurdjieff: The Making of a New World, or his discussion of the Trogoegoautocrat, Heptaparaparshinokh and its relation to the Triamazikamno. So there's the One, and there is differentiation.

The C's have intimated as much as well - all is One, divided into 7 densities. We are fragments or reflections of that One. But what to make of that notion 'All is One' or 'everything is consciousness'? In particular, what to make of:

everything is consciousness, there's nothing left to prove, because consciousness can't be proven, it can only be experienced

Well, my first thought was that there's no reason to assume consciousness can't be proven. Seems like an a priori truth claim.

'Everything is consciousness, there is nothing left to prove' has a curious twist. Seems to me that the statement 'everything is consciousness' needs itself to be proved in order for the statement to work. So the statement invalidates itself unless one accepts 'everything is consciousness' as an a priori truth.

Also, on a practical level, I don't think that if this 'One' is said to be Consciousness, then therefore we can conclude that 'there is nothing to be proved'. It's like looking into the sky and seeing the sun, and taking that at face value. Is there really nothing more to do than just experience a hot glowing orb in the sky?

A better approach for me is that of 'knowing Nature is loving God' as spoken about on the forum for many years now. Knowing Nature includes knowing the sun's characteristics and properties, making calculations - for instance proving correlations between sunspots and cyclical cataclysms, or proving correlations between the health of the human Soul and the function of the solar system. All of this detail would be missed if one just experiences the sun. After all, the C's did say that the meaning of Life is to organize information bits!

I don't think it makes sense to prematurely declare Oneness, either. We sure as hell are separate at some levels of reality - which can be easily proved. Yep, it's said to be an illusion, but we're also here to learn the lessons of 3D, and that includes, in my view, a degree of acceptance of that illusion, knowing it's limitations, and more importantly, our own limitations. Maybe it's just my past experiences speaking, but premature declarations of Oneness can be very bad news, a sign of wishful thinking or New Age fluff. I'd say that in 3D, we are both One and we are not.

So yeah, I'd prefer if we didn't call off the search just yet. Mostly because it's fun - kinda like a way of playing peekaboo with God (which God absolutely loves, apparently) even though the game is often pretty damn terrifying!

 

[Marc Johanson]

If everything is consciousness, there's nothing left to prove, because consciousness can't be proven, it can only be experienced! The only question is, is our consciousness sufficiently awake, deployed and expanded to experience this consciously at all levels?

Si tout est conscience, il n'y a plus rien à prouver car la conscience ne se prouve pas, elle se vit ! Seule question, notre conscience est-elle suffisamment éveillée, déployée, expansée pour vivre cela consciemment à tous les niveaux? ​

It all depends on the motives. If the motive is to break everything down from a technical point of view, then evidence will be required. Consciousness is one of the energies in the equation.

 

[EricLux]

It all depends on the motives. If the motive is to break everything down from a technical point of view, then evidence will be required. Consciousness is one of the energies in the equation.

For me, it's much simpler than that : everything that is objective needs to be proven (this is the raison d'être of all science), whereas what is subjective is specific to the individual, because it's a matter of experience. As for consciousness, it is that which is beyond what is objective or subjective, while allowing them to be. And, of course, I wouldn't say that Consciousness is a substance, because that's a 3D representation of Consciousness. What today's sciences are leading us towards is awareness of the multi-dimensional and inter-dimensional nature of Consciousness, in order to overcome the objective/subjective duality.

Pour moi, c'est beaucoup plus simple que cela : tout ce qui est objectif demande à être prouvé (c'est la raison d'être de toute science) alors que ce qui est subjectif est propre à l'individu car cela relève du vécu. Quant à la conscience, elle est ce qui est au-delà de ce qui est objectif ou subjectif tout en leur permettant d'être. Et, bien sûr, je ne dirai pas que la Conscience est une substance car cela est une représentation 3D de la Conscience. Ce vers quoi les sciences actuelles nous conduisent, c'est de prendre conscience de la nature mutidimensionnelle et interdimensionnelle de la Conscience pour dépasser la dualité objectif/subjectif.​

 

[Jones]

A little more info that might help to gather information on sound wave focussing to see if some clues can be found: Did a bit of a search and come across 'Whispering Galleries'

A whispering gallery is usually a circular, hemispherical, elliptical or ellipsoidal enclosure, often beneath a dome or a vault, in which whispers can be heard clearly in other parts of the gallery. Such galleries can also be set up using two parabolic dishes. Sometimes the phenomenon is detected in caves.

There are a few famous Whispering Galleries, one in St Pauls Cathedral:

Climb 257 steps within the great dome of St Paul’s, and you’ve found yourself at perhaps the greatest ‘accidental’ man-made tourist attraction in London, if not the world.

The Whispering Gallery, as it’s become known, sits 30m above the crossing of the nave. It’s a circular walkway which hugs the base of the dome structure, offering a vertiginous view of the cathedral floor far below.

Architect Sir Christopher Wren hadn’t designed this walkway with acoustics in mind, but because it became such a fashionable meeting spot after the consecration of St Paul’s in 1708, keen-eared visitors were soon picking up on an unintentional sonic quirk you can still witness today.

Whisper along the curving wall, and — provided there’s not too much background noise — someone positioned anywhere along that same wall will be able to hear you. Even if they’re on the other side of the circular walkway, more than 33m away, and far beyond the reach of a regular whisper.

Just imagine how many sweet nothings, political secrets, and "can you hear me"s that curving wall has heard over the past three centuries. But (whisper it): not many people know how this curious and charming phenomenon actually works.

The explanation​

A whisper causes a sound wave, just like a shout does. You might think that a shout creates a more powerful sound wave than a whisper, and stands a better chance of being heard a long way away. In fact, the qualities of a whisper are better able to trigger this particular quirk.

A whisper has what’s known as low ‘intensity’, meaning there’s less interference from echoes and other distortions.

Bear with us here. Think of the interior of the St Paul’s dome structure as resembling a thimble (the dome itself) on top of a wedding ring (the walkway, AKA the Whispering Gallery). We’re mostly interested in the wedding ring here. The Whispering Gallery works because of how sound waves bounce around the inside of this curving section of hard wall.

An old theory suggested the phenomenon came about because sound was bouncing off the interior of the 'thimble'. This idea would only work if the whisper was perceptible for a listener stood on the exact opposite side of the gallery to the whisperer.

Creeping whispers​

It was the suggestion of Lord Rayleigh — who experimented here in the late 1870s — that sound waves actually "creep" horizontally along the inside of the 'wedding ring' by a process of reflection.

The circular shape allows sound waves to bounce round and round multiple times because the angles involved are so slight. That’s how someone on the other side of the walkway can hear you so clearly.

Try it out: you’ll get a much stronger effect if you whisper along the wall, rather than at the wall — and the more marginal the angle, and the clearer the whisper, the better.

Before you whisper to us, those holes in the wall have nothing to do with it. But what does help is that the walls of the wedding ring are slightly inclined inwards at the top. That, in combination with the floor of the Whispering Gallery, simply helps to contain the sound waves.

Thanks, then, to St Paul’s — which provided us the original Whispering Gallery. Whether accidental or intentional, there are now many others round the world, from India’s Gol Gumbaz to New York’s Grand Central Terminal.

One at Grand Central Station:

Explaining the unusual architectural phenomenon of the whispering gallery that carries even the quietest words across dozens of feet amid swells of crowd noise.​

In terms of area and number of platforms, New York’s Grand Central Terminal is the largest train station in the world. Built in 1913, this landmark welcomes an average of about 750,000 visitors each day.

But in the midst of the cacophonous swells of tourists, not to mention commuters and vendors, Grand Central has one quiet little secret. Located on the less hectic lower level and with no great fanfare to announce its presence lies the whispering gallery, also called the whispering wall, a tiny secret that stands apart from the surrounding commotion of city life.

At the whispering gallery, four arched entryways stand in a square formation. And if you whisper something into the arch and someone else stands with their ear to the arch diagonal from yours about 30 feet away, they’ll be able to clearly hear what you said — despite both the distance and the tremendous noise common to Grand Central.

That other person probably wouldn’t have been able to hear your words if they’d been standing just a few feet from you, thanks to the commotion. But due to the power of the whispering gallery, they can hear you loud and clear from a great distance along the arch — hence the appeal of this captivating New York City secret.

The Story Of Grand Central’s Whispering Gallery​

Grand Central Terminal, located on 42nd Street in Midtown Manhattan, is perhaps as well-known for its rich history and beautiful architecture as it is for being a major working transportation hub.

First opened as Grand Central Depot in 1871, the terminal started small. But following a series of major renovations over the course of decades, the site grew to cover more than 900,000 square feet and more than 60 tracks — and one little whispering gallery.

The gallery sits below the main concourse, right outside the popular Oyster Bar restaurant. All you have to do is simply face one of the four archway corners and speak softly into it. The sound will follow the curve of the ceiling, going up the domed wall and coming back down the other side to the ear of someone standing diagonally from you.

In addition to being an acoustic marvel, the gallery is also noted for its beauty. The whispering gallery’s distinctive tile work is called “Gustavino” after the Spanish tile worker Rafael Guastavino, who designed the sweeping archways in 1913.

Given both its beauty and its ability to carry an intimate whisper, it’s no surprise to learn that the gallery is said to be a popular spot for marriage proposals. In fact, one popular yet perhaps apocryphal story says that revered jazz musician Charles Mingus proposed to his fiancée at the whispering gallery circa 1966.

The Practical Magic Behind Whispering Galleries​

People who test out the whispering gallery are continuously delighted and amazed by it — even infamously jaded New Yorkers. And surely the big reason for such wonderment is the basic curiosity of how such a phenomenon is possible.

So how does it work?

Like most seemingly magical things, there’s a science to the whispering gallery (though it wasn’t designed for the purpose of carrying sound as it does — that was a happy accident).

The tiles that make up the curved ceiling are tightly set and there are no vents, thus no place for the sound waves to disappear into. Meanwhile, there are no rugs, thus no place for the sound waves to be absorbed into.

So by simply speaking into one corner, the sound waves are trapped and have no choice but to shoot up and follow the arch to another corner. The waves, which are sometimes called whispering-gallery waves, cling to the walls as they travel around the arch’s circumference.

As incredible as this phenomenon is, it’s far from specific to the whispering gallery in Grand Central Terminal.

There are actually whispering galleries all over the world. Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London has one, as does the Mormon Tabernacle in Utah, the Gol Gumbaz Mausoleum in India, and many other places.

Then why is the Grand Central whispering gallery so beloved by those that know of it? Maybe it has to do with its juxtaposition, the incongruency of it. Grand Central is so busy that to simply stand stationary while inside goes against the norm. So there’s a certain thrill that comes with being able to so clearly hear a quiet voice in a place notorious for loud crowds.

Apparently, enough people are captivated by the gallery that Grand Central promised beforehand (and followed through on that promise) to not disturb the phenomenon when they renovated the area in 2012.

Interesting that since a whisper is a low intensity sound, it's less likely to create interference and be drowned out.

 

[dantem]

Good Morning All,

yesterday Pravda-TV issued a similar article about that. I got the email leading to the link:

Tödliche Prionenkrankheit ist jetzt dank mRNA-Impfstoffen übertragbar - Anstieg der Todesfälle nach Covid-Impfung um 1.236% -

Teile die Wahrheit! 13 Wissenschaftler warnen, dass sich eine seltene und tödliche neurodegenerative Erkrankung seit der Einführung von mRNA-Impfstoffen weiter ausbreitet . Prionenerkrankungen, die das Gehirn aushöhlen und zu einem qualvollen Tod führen, haben in den letzten drei Jahren...

www.pravda-tv.com

It's again in German, you may use the browser translation...

It hints to a new pulished study:

"BREAKING - Our new study found a 1,236% increase in excess deaths after the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in King County, Washington. A quadratic increase in excess cardiopulmonary arrest mortality was observed with higher COVID-19 vaccination rates.

Our study estimated 49,240… pic.twitter.com/VyhmnTuJVQ
— McCullough Foundation (@McCulloughFund) May 27, 2024
Quellen: PublicDomain/thepeoplesvoice.tv/infowars.com am 30.05.2024"

What still is not mentioned: Harald told, that it may start with ingestion of NATTOKINASE if someone carries spike proteins!

BR

Hi,

I've just heard something similar being said by Judy Mikovits, at some point gave a warning against regular "nattokinase", being a sort of toxic element if taken in its simplest form.
I can't follow her when she speaks tho, so I've never figured out if she's credible or not. She's so technical she can't deliver a simple answer especially when interviewed about covid related stuff.. but here's an excerpt of what she said in multiple occasions:

 

[Marc Johanson]

Yeah, the good old 'There is only The One'. Spinoza wrote about this - that there is only one Substance. This substance has infinitely many attributes. This substance is God or nature (Deus Sive Natura or 'God is Nature'). Each of these attributes express the divine essence. And all else is a mode of the one substance. But then, as is usual with philosophers, it's pretty tricky to understand what exactly he means by these words.

Gurdjieff, too - there is the Ray of Creation, which differentiates according to the schemas he outlines such as the worlds within worlds. He also gets pretty tricky with his nested pentads, or levels of Being, as outlined in J.G. Bennet's Gurdjieff: The Making of a New World, or his discussion of the Trogoegoautocrat, Heptaparaparshinokh and its relation to the Triamazikamno. So there's the One, and there is differentiation.

The C's have intimated as much as well - all is One, divided into 7 densities. We are fragments or reflections of that One. But what to make of that notion 'All is One' or 'everything is consciousness'? In particular, what to make of:



Well, my first thought was that there's no reason to assume consciousness can't be proven. Seems like an a priori truth claim.

'Everything is consciousness, there is nothing left to prove' has a curious twist. Seems to me that the statement 'everything is consciousness' needs itself to be proved in order for the statement to work. So the statement invalidates itself unless one accepts 'everything is consciousness' as an a priori truth.

Also, on a practical level, I don't think that if this 'One' is said to be Consciousness, then therefore we can conclude that 'there is nothing to be proved'. It's like looking into the sky and seeing the sun, and taking that at face value. Is there really nothing more to do than just experience a hot glowing orb in the sky?

A better approach for me is that of 'knowing Nature is loving God' as spoken about on the forum for many years now. Knowing Nature includes knowing the sun's characteristics and properties, making calculations - for instance proving correlations between sunspots and cyclical cataclysms, or proving correlations between the health of the human Soul and the function of the solar system. All of this detail would be missed if one just experiences the sun. After all, the C's did say that the meaning of Life is to organize information bits!

I don't think it makes sense to prematurely declare Oneness, either. We sure as hell are separate at some levels of reality - which can be easily proved. Yep, it's said to be an illusion, but we're also here to learn the lessons of 3D, and that includes, in my view, a degree of acceptance of that illusion, knowing it's limitations, and more importantly, our own limitations. Maybe it's just my past experiences speaking, but premature declarations of Oneness can be very bad news, a sign of wishful thinking or New Age fluff. I'd say that in 3D, we are both One and we are not.

So yeah, I'd prefer if we didn't call off the search just yet. Mostly because it's fun - kinda like a way of playing peekaboo with God (which God absolutely loves, apparently) even though the game is often pretty damn terrifying!

I agree that it is necessary to study the living environment, but in my opinion, studying in the context of awareness of unity and other universal laws (“as above, so below” / fractality - I personally really help clarify questions) clarifies the picture much more clearly. I noticed one peculiarity in the difference in the mentality of “Western” people and “Russians”; this is the same thing, viewed with different approaches. Russians begin to study a thing with the concept of the essence of the thing - how this thing works, a “Western” person begins to study with particulars - what this thing looks like. This is a subjective observation.

 

[KaWaiAwaAwa]

As a humble lawyer, I must say that I concur with all that you say above. When I studied physics at High School, I remember telling a fellow classmate (who was a brilliant mathematician) that one day Einstein's theories of relativity would be proved wrong. He was astonished that I could even suggest this. However, even back then I seemed to know instinctively that Einstein was wrong. I know that scientists point to the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment as proof of the Special Theory of Relativity but there are those who think that experiment was flawed.​

Indeed. It proved nothing other than that they could not detect their model of the alleged ether with their setup.

 

[KaWaiAwaAwa]

This is, I think, the most important bias of current physics : that of interpreting everything through its 3D filter. We observe terrestrial phenomena, model them and use these 3D models to describe or even explain the workings of the Universe, which may have nothing to do with a 3D terrestrial reality.​

Physics is about the physical world. It was/is an attempt to describe our situation based on physical observations alone. It was going well until quantum came along and essentially discredited that entire approach (IMHO).

 

[christx11]

It all seems kind of silly, as the ether is not physical, is not measurable. Even fundamental particles don't exist in either time or space until they are measured, observed, recorded, collapsed. The problem is that modern science and physics are totally unaware of the non-physical world, of consciousness.

 

[MJF]

It all depends on the motives. If the motive is to break everything down from a technical point of view, then evidence will be required. Consciousness is one of the energies in the equation.

You say that consciousness is one of the energies in the equation but that begs the question as to what is energy? When I studied physics at High School, that was a huge issue for me. I remember my physics teacher trying to define energy and I well recall not being very satisfied with the answer. Just what is energy? We know that matter can be destroyed and converted into energy (and the opposite is probably true as well - think here of Star Trek's replicator machines and teleportation, which the C's called TDARMs). Energy also has potential. Hence, there is evidently a strong correlation between energy and consciousness. Thus, rather than thinking in terms of solid matter, perhaps we should view the material universe as an energy construct. After all, our TV pictures and lap top images create a two dimensional illusion for us but they are in reality just energy constructs using photons. I would suggest our multidimensional holographic reality is the same. If all is consciousness then all is energy too.​

 

[EricLux]

It all seems kind of silly, as the ether is not physical, is not measurable. Even fundamental particles don't exist in either time or space until they are measured, observed, recorded, collapsed. The problem is that modern science and physics are totally unaware of the non-physical world, of consciousness.

Basically, it's not as stupid as all that, since the ether was supposed to be an absolute reference frame when scientists set out to prove it. A special reference frame. Their interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that they didn't need their concept of the ether to justify their observation. This in no way means that the ether they envisaged does not exist.

What's more, can't something that can't be measured be described mathematically?

And just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't measurable: can we say that cosncience isn't physical when its effects are measurable?

I think some questions about the interpretation of this experiment, its role and its necessity in justifying Einstein's theory of relativity, should be put to the Cs. Because it's looking more and more like a real can of worms. ​

 

[EricLux]

Physics is about the physical world. It was/is an attempt to describe our situation based on physical observations alone. It was going well until quantum came along and essentially discredited that entire approach (IMHO).

So, quantum mechanics, as we know it, is not 3D biaised, if I understood well?

 

[EricLux]

Don't worry about sticky wickets. As a former cricketer, I have batted on a few in my time .

I am quite a fan of the American researcher Dr Joseph Farrell's work and I recall that he dealt with the potential flaws in the Michelson-Morley experiment in one of his books. If I can find the critique, I will try and post it if it should help the debate.

In your post, you ask "what are the flaws in TOR?" You then suggest that it might be possible to obtain the UFT without going into General Relativity. On this issue, the C's once pointed out that Einstein's TOR was not completely incorrect:​

Session 23 November 1996:

Q: (A) Are the extra-dimensions beyond those of space and time relevant?

A: What "extra dimensions?"

Q: (A) Is time multi-dimensional? If so, is it three- dimensional?

A: Not correct concept. Time is not a dimension. This is very complex from your standpoint, but let us just say that time is "selective," or "variable."

Q: (A) I thank you for tonight. Any other comment to ponder about before the next session?

A: Ask, if needed, for a comment on the last responses.

Q: (A) Yes, a comment is needed. I am confused about space, time, Einstein's general relativity, gravitation and electromagnetism.

A: Einstein's Theory of Relativity is only partially correct. That is why we say that there is no "dimension" of time. As far as gravity and electromagnetics are concerned, we suggest a review of the as yet publicly unfinished Unified Field Theory of the same gentleman. Was it completed and put into application in secret? Hmmmmm... And, if so, what are the ramifications? Maybe you could make the same discoveries.

I believe that Einstein published a UFT circa 1936, which he was not happy with. Evidently, the C's are suggesting that he completed it in secret, presumably in the 1940's, but never published it (I assume he wanted to stay alive and not suffer Marinov's fate!). Where the C's say "was it [i.e., UFT] completed and put into application in secret?", I wonder if they had in mind perhaps the Philadelphia Experiment, which may have had catastrophic consequences for the poor crew of the USS Eldridge but no doubt produced incredible data and results for the scientists, including the reality of time travel and teleportation amongst other things. Could this be what the C's were hinting at? Anyway, as a physicist, I would ask if have you studied Einstein's incomplete UFT for ideas?

Now Einstein's TOR is predicated on his Space/Time concept where you have three dimensions of space and one of time. In the above extract I quoted, the C's shot down Einstein's 'dimensionalisation' of time.

On that note, whilst looking for a specific article in my old issues of Nexus Magazine for a piece I am writing about for another thread, I stumbled across a 2022 article written by Robert Solomon called 'Time and Causality'.

He started his article by quoting first Einstein where he said: "There is something essential about the 'now' which is outside the realm of science".

He then followed this by quoting professor Nima Arkani-Hamed from a lecture he delivered in 2016:

"Very many separate arguments, all very strong individually, suggest that the very notion of spacetime is not fundamental. Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That is very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So, if there is no spacetime, it is not clear what physics is about."

Robert Solomon (N.B. who has read the Jane Roberts' Seth material) then boldly states that time does not exist as an objective reality. I would add that Solomon has also been influenced by Julian Barbour's theories in his book 'The End of Time'. Thus, Solomon goes on by stating:

"The existence of time is an illusion thought by some to "be" because conscious beings in our physical, three dimensional world can only be aware of single states of physical reality in each "now" - or current instant, which consequently have to emerge sequentially - so that each instantaneous state needs to be separated by something. That "something" is time."

He then uses the analogy that time can be compared to the interval between frames, as a film (movie) is wound forward. He suggests that we experience these instantaneous states seamlessly, in a casually ordered sequence.

I seem to recall the C's using a similar analogy although they do not dismiss time altogether, only what we view as linear or sequential time. Indeed, they followed up on their statement that "time is "selective," or "variable"", which they made in the session dated 23 November 1996 quoted above by using a 'juke box' analogy:
​

Session 30 November 1996:

Q: (L) You said previously that time was 'selective and variable.' What, exactly, does this mean?

A: By "Selective", we mean simply to think of time as if it were like your jukebox. There are many selections there, you may play them as you choose. But you need not play them sequentially, unless that is all you know. The selections are always there, are they not?

Q: (L) Well, that is crazy! You can't just go around having things happening in random order?!

A: Random is in the eyes of the perceiver.

Q: (L) What is it that causes us to only be able to perceive time in a sequential way?

A: DNA restructuring, as in the handiwork of our friends, STS 4th density.

Well, there have been various examples of glitches in the Matrix cited on the Forum where time itself even seems to have been frozen. Take for example the incidents a few years ago of aircraft that were frozen in mid-air as they came into land. Indeed, 4D STS seem to use such time freeze technology to abduct people, as discussed by the three gypsy commentators in Morris K Jessup's book The Case for the UFO (Varo Edition). One of them mentioned using his consciousness to break the time freeze lock they had tried to place him in. If you haven't read Jessup's book do so, as the C's recommended it to Laura since it is an absolute mine of information (including a mention of Einstein and UFT). It is available free online.

However, if you remove time from the equation, it then raises questions about the existence of linear causality. In an earlier post, I referred to the theory that our physical universe is in reality a holographic projection, a virtual reality so that we are like players within a video game. Solomon runs with this notion and cites the Matrix paradigm, a concept that was popularised by the Matrix movies. He states that we do not experience reality directly but rather, it is "buffered". He then cites Hoffman's interface theory of perception ("ITP") to support his arguments that we exist in a computer simulation or a virtual reality. Hoffman proposes that consciousness itself, not spacetime and physical objects, is the fundamental reality from which all else is derived.

This leads Solomon to state:

"For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space, time and physical objects - and with great success. They thought they were studying reality but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself."

This last analogy reminds me of the metaphor of Plato's cave, where his human observers were looking at shadows on a cave wall (analogous to 3D) when the real action (4D) that was casting the shadows on the wall was going on behind them, which they were unable to see since they were facing forwards.

I think you echoed this same point in your earlier post when you said:
​

Scientists who have set up a theoretical framework to unify G and EM on the basis of Einstein's theory of general relativity (which implies that EM and G are not identical, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted all those years developing a conceptual framework for unification) will be able to claim that this is the case, since G and EM both unfold and propagate at the speed of light. This is how they say they discovered that gravity waves propagate at the speed of light. In fact, what they're describing here, to me, is the 3D perception/interpretation of a physical phenomenon. It doesn't tell us anything about the reality of the physical phenomenon in question. In a way, it's like observing reality through a 3D dimensional filter or a pair of 3D glasses. This is what we say about mathematical models : they serve to model and describe the observed phenomenon but it's only a model. What about the intrinsic reality of the phenomenon itself? This goes back to what many former scientists and, above all, physicists have described over the last few decades, when they said that mathematics had overtaken physics and even science.

This is, I think, the most important bias of current physics : that of interpreting everything through its 3D filter. We observe terrestrial phenomena, model them and use these 3D models to describe or even explain the workings of the Universe, which may have nothing to do with a 3D terrestrial reality. Between modelling, which is just one approach among many, and the fact that the Universe is not necessarily 3D in nature, it's easy to understand why we're talking about dark matter, dark energy and so on...

Hence, it seems that we need to follow Hoffman's proposal that consciousness itself, not spacetime and physical objects, is the fundamental reality from which all else is derived and build this into the UFT in place of time. How one achieves that is how the Nobel Prize is won - over to you .​

@MJF

I'm a bit overwhelmed between the last translations of the sessions to be done in French, my studies, some ideas in physics and maths that I'd like to post (and which require rigorous and clear writing because that's how I check if I'm comfortable with what I'm feeling and writing) and reading all the sessions to familiarize myself with the energy and presence of the Cs. Little by little, this will do it.

What's more, I need to read in French to make sure I don't miss any subtleties.

You've given me lots of references, some of which I've already heard of. I'm writing them all down because, in the search for UFT (Unified Field Theory), what I've come to realize is that there isn't just one truth. Each contributor carries his or her own share of truth.

As soon as I can, I start by posting a thread on UFT for Cs questions.

We'll keep on exchanging so that, little by little, we become aware of the structure of reality in which we're all immersed. Thanks to the 4th "dimension", we've become aware that we can get out of 3D and the proper way to do that is to integrate all the lessons of 3D :)

This suddenly got me thinking : can we be in 4D just through mathematics?

The Cs have repeatedly insisted on the need to study maths (for example, to get a feel for what the Sumerians really were - or are). Yet I have the feeling that until you've experienced something, you can't translate it into equations. Which would tend to mean that you first have to integrate the 3D lessons in order to be able to explain them in mathematical form. Perhaps, I'm talking about living mathematics as opposed to today's abstract mathematics. Now that I'm answering you, I have this recurring question : if guys find the UFT, do they go straight into 4D? Are they aware of other realities? Because it's one thing to get your hands on a theory and quite another to experience the phenomenon described by the theory. I'd much rather live it!

Thanks for all, see you soon...​

 

[MJF]

A little more info that might help to gather information on sound wave focussing to see if some clues can be found: Did a bit of a search and come across 'Whispering Galleries'



There are a few famous Whispering Galleries, one in St Pauls Cathedral:


One at Grand Central Station:



Interesting that since a whisper is a low intensity sound, it's less likely to create interference and be drowned out.

Long before St Paul's Cathedral and Grand Central Station our ancestors seemed aware of the peculiar properties of sound. A classic example is the Hypogeum on the Island of Malta - see: Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum - Wikipedia



The Hypogeum (that was only rediscovered in 1902) is thought to have been a Neolithic sanctuary and necropolis, with the estimated remains of more than 7,000 people documented by archaeologists. Archaeologists believe that a resonance niche cut in the middle chamber, called the Oracle Room, was possibly designed to project chanting or drumming throughout the rest of the Hypogeum.

As a side note, Wikipedia mentions that a small percentage of the skulls discovered in the Hypogeum have an abnormal cranial elongation, similar to priestly skulls from Ancient Egypt, fuelling speculation about the people who occupied the Hypogeum, and their practices and beliefs. What Wikipedia doesn't say though is that many of the skulls of these people were large and elongated without a sagittal suture running down the middle, which all normal adult human beings have. As to the reference to Ancient Egypt, it is interesting that Queen Nefertiti, a Hittite from Anatolia (modern day Turkey), and her children had large elongated skulls and we know from the C's that she was a "Deep Level Punctuator" hybrid coming from the subterranean civilisation, which the C's have described as the Nation of the Third Eye. Nor are these skulls unique to Egypt and Malta since they have been found in Anatolia, parts of Western Europe and as far away as the Paracas region in Peru.

The so called Oracle Room, a side chamber within the structure, has the peculiarity of producing a powerful acoustic resonance from any vocalisation made inside it. Audio engineers have conducted extensive sound tests and discovered that the sound qualities of the Oracle Room are conducive to creating an alpha wave state, which is a state connected to meditation and REM sleep.

It is curious that the Neolithic structures on Malta are attributed in local tradition to giants. Given the great weight of some of the stones used in the construction of these Maltese sites, no doubt the builders used sound wave focusing techniques to lift these heavy stones into position just as the C's said the builders of the Great Pyramid at Giza and Stonehenge did.​

 

[Natus Videre]

Energy also has potential. Hence, there is evidently a strong correlation between energy and consciousness. Thus, rather than thinking in terms of solid matter, perhaps we should view the material universe as an energy construct.

I am often impressed by the visual quality of images in dreams. In fact, dream objects can be portrayed so well to fool you into thinking that you've always lived in the reality of the dream. Where do these electrons, protons, and neutrons that make up the objects in the dream come from? How can we generate such an accurate picture of reality in some other reality? It's hard to imagine that this is possible without the material universe having an energetic, or 'limitless' component.

Q: (L) I was thinking it, but they didn't let me finish. For the record, I was thinking that we are all part of the same soul unit here.

A: To an extent, but you may not yet understand what exactly a "soul unit" is in that sense. And of course, there is more than one sense for this as well. The "trick" that 3rd density STS life forms will learn, either prior to transition to 4th density, or at the exact juncture, is to think in absolutely limitless terms. The first and most solid step in this process is to not anticipate at all. This is most difficult for you. We understand this, but this as also why we keep reiterating this point. For example, imagine if one of your past lives is also a future life?

For example, let's say you have a physical ball in front of you. You play with it, look at it from all angles, and you imagine it in your mind. You create a non-material ball with identical characteristics. Then, you make copies of the ball—one copy, ten copies, one million copies, and so on. The physical world around you still works; the physical ball is still there; the fabric of reality is seemingly 'intact,' yet you have created a virtually unlimited number of non-material balls almost instantly. Where are these non-material balls located? Well, they can be infinitely close or infinitely far from you... if you want. They can aggregate in a very tiny space... if you want. You can arrange them in a triangular pattern... if you want. Infinite possibilities. How does gravity 'balance' such a 'limitless' thought experiment? Did we just cause an inter-dimensional turbulence in some perpendicular reality?