November 21, 1998
Laura, Ark, Frank
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Mohnah.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: Okay, we have a number of questions here... We have this paper here written by Henry P. Stapp... I can't find page one, though...
A: Suggest you be more vigilant in efforts to find page 1. [Break while page is found.]
Q: Alright, Henry Stapp says in the beginning of this proto-book: "This book is about you. It is about your essence: what you are, and how you are connected to that which you are not. Knowing this is important to you, because your beliefs about yourself and your connection to `the other' are ultimately the basis of every decision you make in your life. [...]You may think you know what you are. You may have been taught that you're a giant bundle of cells, with each cell a complex arrangement of atoms connected to each other by simple mechanical laws. So you may imagine that science has shown you to be, basically, a giant machine: a huge mechanical device, advancing in a totally predictable way, governed, in principle, by the mechanical interactions of its tiny parts.[...] But what about your thoughts, your hopes, your aspirations, your ideas? How do they fit in? Surely, they are an important part of you. Indeed, together with your other experiential qualities, such as your sensations, and feelings, they are your essence. Your "material" self is important to you as the carrier of your experiential self, and as the link between your experiential self and the rest of nature. But how does this material self mesh with your experiential self? [...] What does science tell us about this connection? [...] Curiously, the consensus of scientific opinion on this basic question of the connection between our material and experiential selves is based on a theory that reigned from the time of Isaac Newton until the beginning of this century, but that was replaced about seventy years ago by a theory that differs from it, basically, precisely on this question of how our material and experiential selves are related. [...] According to the earlier theory, any large system, including the entire universe, changes in essentially the same way that a mechanical clock is imagined to change: the large-scale movements are completely determined by local mechanical interactions between its tiny material parts. No one's experiences have, fundamentally, anything to do with it. [...] But the basic contemporary physical theory, quantum theory, if taken seriously, says just the opposite: it says that our experiential knowings are the basic dynamical units, and that what had in earlier times been understood as material particles that could exist apart from knowings, must be replaced by a knowledge-bearing structure. This structure evolves the knowledge created by earlier knowings into the makings of later knowings. So instead of tiny atoms controlling each other, and thereby all knowings, it is rather the knowings that are the basic irreducible units: they enter as entire units into a dynamic structure that carries forward the facts fixed by past knowings to produce the possibilities for future knowings."
Now, my understanding of what he is saying is that he is replacing the 'former clock' with just another 'clock.' He says that this is what Quantum Theory is saying; that all of the fundamental units of quantum physics are 'knowings,' that these are the basic irreducible units. Could you comment on this idea?
A: How do you suppose this could be?
Q: Well, that is what I am asking you. This is what he is saying that Quantum Theory says.
A: Where does one fit the proverbial square peg into the round hole?
Q: Please don't be too cryptic with us tonight as we are really pretty desperate here and have thought ourselves into exhaustion!
A: Desperation is not necessary, or helpful.
Q: Well, we have read and thought and gone over the sessions, and discussed it and have no satisfactory conclusion. Stapp says that the wave function represents our knowledge of the system and that the reduced wave packets are more precise knowledge after measure. The question is: is there more than OUR knowledge and which is beyond...
A: The question is: Is knowledge physical? Can it be physicalized? Is not physics the study of that which is physical?
Q: Alright, can knowledge be physicalized?
A: No.
Q: (A) Can knowledge be converted to mathematics?
A: Yes. As we have indicated, mathematics serves as a bridge between that which is physical and that which is not.
Q: So, Stapp quotes Heisenberg saying: the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior." Can that be a correct statement in reference to Quantum Physics?
A: But there are no "units" of knowledge.
Q: He says: certainly our knowledge can change suddenly, and that this fact justifies the use of the term `quantum jump'. " Is a sudden change in knowledge equivalent to a quantum jump?
A: What is the definition of "Quantum"?
Q: (L) A measurement? Quantification? (A) When we say 'quantum jump,' we mean a jump that is typical of quantum phenomena, such as manipulation of particles, electron jumping from one orbit to another... anything that changes rapidly and for which we do not have a mechanical description because we don't understand what is in between, how this jump happens. A sudden change of value, state or something... decay of a particle... (L) So, Stapp says: "at Solvay, physicists, of all people, had come up with a rational solution, based on empirical evidence, in which all of the observed regularities of nature that had formerly ascribed to matter, were present without there being anything like ordinary matter. The mathematical structure needed to account for the classical regularities of nature, plus all the newly discovered ones whose existence could not be reconciled with the classical conception of matter, arose from the mathematical properties of the knowings themselves!"
A: Mathematical properties? Yes. But when one is working from the wrong premise, where does one "get off."
Q: (A) What wrong premise?
A: The premise from which you are quoting.
Q: (L) He says: Orthodox quantum theory is pragmatic: it is a practical tool based on human knowings.
A: In a sense, maybe.
Q: (L) Here is where he attacks: "The wording is again subtle, and confirms the thesis that the mathematical structure of quantum theory is about our knowledge. But it assuages the intuitions of physicists by speaking of events out there at the device that presumably are not controlled by human observers or observations. But the mathematical structure of the theory does not describe those external physical events themselves in micro-physical terms: the mathematical structure is tied to our descriptions, basically in plain everyday language, of the human experiences that we normally imagine to be caused by `events out there'." Now, my question is: do events 'out there' occur?
A: Yes.
Q: What is it that quantum physics is describing?
A: Vague.
Q: Of course I know that's vague. Stapp says: "On the other hand, there is a suggestion that there really are events occurring `out there', which are we are observing, and which do not derive their beingness from our observations of them." Are there events out there that we are observing that do NOT derive their beingness from our observation?
A: Yes.
Q: The events out there derive their beingness from what?
A: From their beingness.
Q: What is at the root of their beingness that makes their beingness different from ours?
A: This is completely the incorrect concept.
Q: What is the correct concept?
A: All is one and one is all.
Q: Well, that is not helping us here. That's what he's saying! He is saying that everything is just 'knowings.'
A: No!
Q: Are we interacting with something out there?
A: Of course, but it is not just "out there."
Q: So, Stapp says: "I call the idea that the formalism is directly about 'physical events out there at the devices,' the Vulgar Copenhagen Interpretation. It is vulgar in the sense that it is coarse, in the way just mentioned, and it is common. [...] This Vulgar Interpretation is common among practicing quantum physicists." And, it seems that he is directing this particularly at Ark, since Ark is one of the creators of what Henry is here calling the 'Coarse Copenhagen Interpretation.'
A: And....
Q: Well, he further says: "In classical physics this distinction is, of course, again present, but once duly noted is not very important. In orthodox quantum theory this distinction is crucial. [...] My aim, basically, is to reconcile the insight of the founders of quantum theory that the mathematical formalism of quantum theory is about knowledge with the demand of Einstein that our basic physical theory be about nature." So, what is Nature and why is it out there?
A: It is not "out there." Why are you stuck on this?
Q: I am trying to get through this. He says: "Of course, pushing the boundary all the way to mind brings mind into our theory of nature. But why on earth should we try to keep mind out--- bottled up, ignored, and isolated from the physical world---when we know it is present, and seemingly efficacious, particularly when the intense struggle of physicists to find a rational way of accounting for observed phenomena led them to the conclusion that the rational way to formulate a theory that accounts for our experiences pertaining to "physical reality" has the form of a theory about knowings, not the form of a theory about matter. [...] In view of the failure of our seventy-year effort to exclude mind from our theory of nature I suggest that our rational aim should not be to resuscitate moribund matter, which we are well rid of, because of the two millennia of philosophical perplexity it engendered. Rather we must learn how better to understand knowings, within their natural habitat, the mathematical structure of the quantum formalism that accurately accords with our experiences rather than blatantly contradicting them."
(A) Concerning this last sentence, Stapp absolutizes Quantum Theory, and he believes that Quantum Mathematical Formalism is sufficient to describe knowledge. I doubt this, because Quantum Theory is a very simple theory, and to describe knowledge mathematically, I believe that we have to go beyond the quantum formalism.
A: "Knowings" implies units of measureable physicality. Not so! Knowledge is not physical, thus constant.
Q: (L) Well, that is sort of his point. He is saying that nothing really exists except knowings...
A: No.
Q: (A) I have a problem here. You say knowledge is not physical. I don't care, just now, what is the definition of physical or non-physical. The question for me right now is, is there some mathematical framework that describes at the same time a kind of a unified theory, that describes both atoms AND knowledge. Can one think of such... whether it can be described by a mathematical formalism that will take into account BOTH?
A: Well, whether or not knowledge can be quantified or not is one question. But to understand the concept, one must rearrange one's mathematical thinking to fit into the non-physical realm. Atoms represent the foundational measurement of material, or physical reality. It is possible to bridge the two, but not to combine the two.
Q: (L) Is quantum theory as it stands, about knowings or about physical units?
A: It is about measurement.
Q: Does quantum physics, as it is, describe matter?
A: This is missing the point altogether. Why does one need matter to measure?
Q: Well, this is our point. He is saying that all there is is mind, that you know things, and that the whole universe is an illusion of your knowings, so that your perceptions of perceptions are these knowings, and that the universe constantly changes based on these knowings, and all that is really changing is your knowings and you perceive your knowings change, and that is the whole thing. He is saying that...
A: There are no "knowings!!!!!!!"
Q: So Stapp's idea about quantum physics being measures of knowings is completely...
A: False!
Q: (A) There is another question, because he absolutizes quantum physics, and it doesn't even come to his mind that there is, perhaps, a better theory than quantum theory which describes more than just measurements, and that is somewhat along the line of Einstein's Unified Field Theory, or something like that. He considers that Quantum Theory as we know it, that its mathematical formalism, is the last word and that we will never go beyond that.
A: Wrong, obviously.
Q: (A) The point is, of course, that no one up to the present time has found such a better theory.
A: But "now" is only the beginning.
Q: (A) Back to the concept of events; you said events exist. Is it true that every event is a splitting of the universe, or branching of the universe?
A: Events take many forms.
Q: (A) When events happen, it means that one particular thing out of many potential things was chosen, or are there other events? For me an event is when, out of many possible things, one is chosen. What are the other possible forms? Can we have some examples?
A: Events can transpire without knowledge.
Q: (A) What is characteristic of events that involve branching of universes? Is it that, for this particular event, consciousness must participate?
A: There is a critical juncture, which coincides with a discharge of energy.
Q: (A) There is a critical juncture in any event or in this particular type of event of branching?
A: Latter.
Q: (L) Does that mean that a branching event must be related in some way to consciousness or observation?
A: No.
Q: (L) Where does the energy discharge from?
A: Consciousness is on one side, and what is on the other?
Q: (L) What IS on the other side? Matter?
A: We have given the clue.
Q: (L) Energy?
A: Closer.
Q: (A) Okay, let me ask a little bit more technical question, in this theory about which I am supposed to write this paper, we are making a kind of a union of the standard quantum theory with something else that is not described by a wave function, which is supposed to objectively exist. But, this is a mathematical model. The question is: in reality, what is it that really exists? What are things that really exist?
A: Gravity is the key. Now, plug in your wave functions.
Q: (L) How can you describe gravity mathematically?
A: Must be possible! Review texts re: gravity.
Q: (L) We did... and either we are so dense, or we can't get it...
A: Not dense, emotionally clouded. When one is in a defensive mode, all is "skewed," including this conduit.
Q: (L) So, what is on the other side is consciousness and gravity?
A: No, review texts and meditate to clear consciousness of emotional poison!
Q: (L) What is the source of this emotional poison? Our reaction to this paper?
A: Yes. Attack, attack. Break needed!
Q: (A) Who needs a break? (L) Now?
A: You do.
[Break]
Q: (L) Okay, Stapp says: "Our ideas about matter and energy ensure that no matter, or energy-bearing stuff, can travel faster than light. Thus this faster-than-light result shows that reality certainly cannot be made out of "matter", or any form of energy, as it is normally conceived. [..] How does orthodox quantum theory cope with this problem? [...] It tries to say that there is no problem, because the wave function represents only our knowledge. [...] The idea is this. Suppose you know that the nearby and faraway parts of a physical system are strongly correlated. Then your new knowledge about some nearby part can often give you immediate knowledge about a faraway part, without that faraway part being affected physically by your act of looking at the nearby part. Thus your seeing that one end of a compass needle points north can immediately tell you that the other end points south, without your actions having any immediate physical effect at all on the south end. [...] Faster-than-light connections in the realm of knowings are thus deemed unproblematic. [...] This argument is based on the normal idea that these knowings are knowings about physical things. The faster-than-light effect in the realm of knowledge clearly does not entail any such effect in the external physical reality. Hence this effect in the realm of knowledge is seen to be nonphysical: to be not physically real.[...] But if one were to take knowledge itself as the basic reality then there might be a problem, for there would be no other "physical" reality upon which to base the claim that the faster-than-light effect in the realm of knowledge is "not physically real". Such an embarrassment might arise if one were to interpret quantum theory literally as a description of a knowledge-based, rather than matter-based, reality. [...] But Heisenberg and Bohr circumvented such a faster-than-light embarrassment by not taking quantum theory seriously: i. e., by effectively rejecting the idea that the knowledge-based mathematical formalism describes a corresponding knowledge-based reality. Thus when Heisenberg describes "what happens `really' in an atomic event" he talks about the events at the measuring device, and hence effectively validates the normal idea that the `knowledge' that the formalism is about is, in the normal way, knowledge about physical events. The knowings are not, in the orthodox view, to be regarded as the basic realities, even though they are the realities that the formalism is based upon. [...] Thus there are two powerful reasons for asserting that the quantum formalism does not give a description of reality itself . The first is that this move saves our common sense intuitions that there is something `out there'; the second is that it apparently helps to save us from having to admit that there are real faster-than-light effects.”
(A) I would like to know who is paying this Stapp and why?
A: Those who are against unlocking the truth are at the "core."
Q: (L) Have we discussed Stapp enough?
A: Yes.
Q: Next subject: Mike (discussion group member) has sent some follow-up questions. His first question is: Does the mystery surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau have to do with what Henry Lincoln describes as the 'Temple,' which is some ancient megalith...
A: No.
Q: (M) He says: I've had three experiences with aliens, who kindly provided me with silicone beads of some kind. Were these physical abductions or just projections?
A: One begets the other. A projection involves transdimensional atomic remolecularization.
Q: (M) When and where was the last experience?
A: April and in sleep state. There is a window which overlooks sloping meadow. Fruit trees, possibly apple, nearby.
Q: (L) Why did you bring up this window and this meadow and fruit trees? Is this the window through which this occurred?
A: Let it play out.
Q: (M) Will the silicone beads show up in an x-ray?
A: No.
Q: (M) In the dream about the 'communication device,' was that a memory of a previous experience, or was it an actual experience that happened that night?
A: Reflection.
Q: (M) With respect to RV and chemical/magnetic alignments improving psychic abilities, can this be artificially induced by locally applied magnetic fields?
A: Dangerous to experiment with. Like Franklin and his kites.
Q: (M) My friend Marc had a dream a few nights ago which he feels is related to the previous one. He was hit in the head by a 2X4 wielded by a child, which immediately woke him up. He caught sight of a movement out of the corner of his eye when he woke up. What was the moving object or creature?
A: Interdensity energy.
Q: (M) Was this, in any way, related to implants and alien encounters?
A: Indirectly.
Q: (M) Was it significant?
A: All is.
Q: (M) Is the source in the books "Conversations with God," a reliable and accurate source?
A: Only partially.
Q: (L) Okay, I got the "Robot's Rebellion," book and I was hoping this was going to be something useful, and he says in here: "Just as the sun is the mind that guides the Solar System, the Galactic Mind guides the galaxy and the Universal Mind guides the universe. The Source is the mind that guides all creation. Sunspot activity is linked to this flow of energy from the sun to the solar system, and this indicates the times when the flow is at its most powerful." Are sunspots an indication that a flow of information is at its most powerful?
A: Maybe.
Q: Then this David Icke says: "The imbalanced consciousness that I will call Lucifer is not an essential part of the positive/negative balance. He is a disrupting, disharmonious aspect of consciousness, which is not necessary for human evolution. More than that, Lucifer's efforts to close off the channels that link humanity to its higher understanding have blocked, not advanced, our evolution." Is this a correct assessment of this Luciferian Consciousness, that it is not part of the positive/negative balance of the universe, and that it has blocked our evolution?
A: No.
Q: Can you comment on the Luciferian consciousness and what part it may play in our evolution and reality?
A: It is part of the lesson plan.
Q: That was my thought as well, but he says that because of this problem with the Luciferian consciousness, the "higher levels of creation began to intervene because Lucifer was imposing its misunderstandings on others and breaking the universal law of free will. Is this true?
A: No.
Q: I have read about this 'decision to intercede' by higher levels of consciousness who look down upon mankind and feel sorry for our terrible suffering, and that somehow, if something isn't done, the whole universe will be overcome by this evil... so it has got to be 'stopped.' A number of sources promote this idea, which then leads, generally, to claims that this or another alien group is part of the 'good guys' or bad guys, or whatever. Is any of this idea accurate?
A: No.
Q: So, what is, IS, and we only suffer exactly as much as we need to learn? Is that it?
A: There is more to it than that, but at this point, you would be unable to comprehend.
Q: Icke says "this Luciferian consciousness is a large aspect of Divine Consciousness which chose to work against the Source. Is this true?
A: Not really.
Q: Well, it SEEMS that the Luciferian Consciousness is working against the Source. If it is not, what is it doing?
A: Balancing where needed.
Q: He says: "Other volunteers, aspects of very highly evolved consciousness, came into the universe and this galaxy in an effort to restore harmony. They did not incarnate in physical bodies on the earth, they arrived in spacecraft, some of them miles in length, while others simply manifested themsleves here. These were extraterrestrials who came to bring knowledge to this planet hundreds of thousands of years ago." Is this true? Yes or no?
A: Neither. [Phone rings and Blue Resonant Human joins session]
Q: (BRH) Is there anything I should know at this point about Kim in relation to me?
A: Vague!
Q: (BRH) Should I pursue this?
A: He is not getting it yet. All there is is lessons.
Q: (BRH) Talk about vague! (L) It is a reflection of the vagueness of your question.
A: Vague in, vague out!
Q: (BRH) Okay, I like Kim and I am considering pursuing a relationship with her.
A: Some like to dance from the proverbial fire to the frying pan, and some do not. But what good would a lesson be, if not containing the potential to learn!?!
Q: (L) I guess that I would say that you need to follow your instincts and don't let emotion run the show. One of the biggest things working against us...
A: Right at this point, the emotional switch is turned on "high."
Q: (L) Most human emotions are not, as some people think, of the soul; they are chemical. And, these chemicals can be stimulated to turn emotions on and off - witness a lot of women who suffer from PMS. All kinds of waves and frequencies around us, including those emanated by other people, can turn these chemicals on and off. This is what happens when the 'hooks' get into your flesh from propinquity. When you encounter a new person, the same thing can happen over again in a very powerful way, and, of course, because of the euphoric effect of a new set of stimuli, it makes you think that 'oh, this is DIFFERENT! This is the SOUL!' I can assure you that, if what happens between two people, occurs due to the physical presence of the other person ALONE, watch out! This knowledge is hard won, believe me.
A: If Devin has questions, why not allow Devin to question?
Q: (L) Okay, I'll shut up. (BRH) I'm getting the sense that the chapter is not closed on this Kim deal. But, moving on, I have a friend named Lisa on the net who is pleading with me for help. She doesn't know if she is losing her mind or what, and I told her I would try to do what I can. So, the question she asks is: 'Am I losing my mind or what?'
A: Or what.
Q: (BRH) Any advice?
A: As with all others, we get into trouble when we first assume, then attempt to collect data to substantiate our assumptions.
Q: (L) I guess that is what they are saying to her, that she has made an assumption and is trying to collect data to...
A: No commentaries are needed, unless you wish to risk destroying the value of the message!!!
[Dog begins to bark]
Q: (BRH) Last time you were trying to direct me to inquire about career and family, and that I did not see it or understand it at the time because I was thinking more in terms of job. I don't think I used the opportunity to inquire deeply enough into those issues. So, I would like to know if you have any further comments about career and family issues for me?
A: Only if specific inquiries are made.
Q: (BRH) I have been toying with the notion of dropping out and writing a book. Any advice on that?
A: Sounds good to us!
Q: (L) [Remarks about Tom French, journalist who is writing about the Cassiopaean group who just recently won Pulitzer Prize] So, if he ever gets the segment about this published, I guess we will be about the only channeling group investigated by a Pulitzer Prize Winner!
A: Oh boy, oh boy!
Q: (L) Are you guys being sarcastic or happy?
A: Both.
Q: (L) [To BRH] Well, the C's predicted his Pulitzer Prize... you know, he went through a divorce after becoming involved with us, the photographer assigned to him went through a divorce, I went through a divorce...they had made predictions about the upcoming changes in his life, and he completely would not believe it, but now that it had transpired, he wanted to know what else was going to happen to him, and how he was going to feel about it. So, the C's told him that he was going to be 100 per cent happy with the upcoming changes... and that is about as far as they would go with it. But, after the fact, he knew what they meant. Hopefully, his experiences are going to incline him to write about us kindly... (BRH) I was very happy about a remark you made several years ago about my youngest daughter, and the fruit that was borne from that comment. Again, last time, you brought up my youngest daughter, and made the remark that the separation was not going to be for long. Do you have any further comment to make about that?
A: Strong soul connection there. Intertwined past lives, positive sense.
Q: (L) I guess you can ask how many past lives together... and go from there...
A: Not important.
Q: (BRH) What is the purpose for our relationship in this time?
A: That is for you to discover!
Q: (BRH) Any hints?
A: Nope.
Q: (BRH) If nothing else, your remark a couple of years ago has really borne some amazing fruit. I really thought she was a pain in the ass before, and I have really loved her deeply ever since you said what you did. There is a very special connection there that I don't fully understand...
A: You will.
Q: (BRH) Thanks for nothing, guys!
A: Not nothing, now is it?
Q: (BRH) No, you are right, it is not. Thank you. I am aware that there must be some overarching purpose to my presence on the internet. I have established a huge number of contacts in an extremely diversified group of folks, and I felt really driven previously to provide data to all of them. But, lately, I am losing my zeal for that.
A: Zeal loss stems from approach. Better to teach than to preach.
Q: (BRH) Teach what?
A: Sharing info attracts.
Q: (BRH) On a cosmic level, I feel that there is some sort of purpose in what I have done up to this time. I have built this structure, what do I do with it now? I have this feeling that it has not happened for no reason.
A: Let it unfold without anticipation.
Q: (BRH) What is my purpose?
A: To BE!
[Conversation with BRH is concluded.]
Q: (L) I wanted to ask a couple more questions: you mentioned Jack and the Beanstalk in a previous session. I am concerned that there is nothing going on at present. We are in a sort of pause mode here.
A: All will be well.
Q: Devin was concerned that you might not think it would be a good idea for him to come...
A: Why would we think that?
Q: I know... but, any comment?
A: It would be good.
Q: Anything else tonight?
A: No. Good night.
End of Session
Laura, Ark, Frank
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Mohnah.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: Okay, we have a number of questions here... We have this paper here written by Henry P. Stapp... I can't find page one, though...
A: Suggest you be more vigilant in efforts to find page 1. [Break while page is found.]
Q: Alright, Henry Stapp says in the beginning of this proto-book: "This book is about you. It is about your essence: what you are, and how you are connected to that which you are not. Knowing this is important to you, because your beliefs about yourself and your connection to `the other' are ultimately the basis of every decision you make in your life. [...]You may think you know what you are. You may have been taught that you're a giant bundle of cells, with each cell a complex arrangement of atoms connected to each other by simple mechanical laws. So you may imagine that science has shown you to be, basically, a giant machine: a huge mechanical device, advancing in a totally predictable way, governed, in principle, by the mechanical interactions of its tiny parts.[...] But what about your thoughts, your hopes, your aspirations, your ideas? How do they fit in? Surely, they are an important part of you. Indeed, together with your other experiential qualities, such as your sensations, and feelings, they are your essence. Your "material" self is important to you as the carrier of your experiential self, and as the link between your experiential self and the rest of nature. But how does this material self mesh with your experiential self? [...] What does science tell us about this connection? [...] Curiously, the consensus of scientific opinion on this basic question of the connection between our material and experiential selves is based on a theory that reigned from the time of Isaac Newton until the beginning of this century, but that was replaced about seventy years ago by a theory that differs from it, basically, precisely on this question of how our material and experiential selves are related. [...] According to the earlier theory, any large system, including the entire universe, changes in essentially the same way that a mechanical clock is imagined to change: the large-scale movements are completely determined by local mechanical interactions between its tiny material parts. No one's experiences have, fundamentally, anything to do with it. [...] But the basic contemporary physical theory, quantum theory, if taken seriously, says just the opposite: it says that our experiential knowings are the basic dynamical units, and that what had in earlier times been understood as material particles that could exist apart from knowings, must be replaced by a knowledge-bearing structure. This structure evolves the knowledge created by earlier knowings into the makings of later knowings. So instead of tiny atoms controlling each other, and thereby all knowings, it is rather the knowings that are the basic irreducible units: they enter as entire units into a dynamic structure that carries forward the facts fixed by past knowings to produce the possibilities for future knowings."
Now, my understanding of what he is saying is that he is replacing the 'former clock' with just another 'clock.' He says that this is what Quantum Theory is saying; that all of the fundamental units of quantum physics are 'knowings,' that these are the basic irreducible units. Could you comment on this idea?
A: How do you suppose this could be?
Q: Well, that is what I am asking you. This is what he is saying that Quantum Theory says.
A: Where does one fit the proverbial square peg into the round hole?
Q: Please don't be too cryptic with us tonight as we are really pretty desperate here and have thought ourselves into exhaustion!
A: Desperation is not necessary, or helpful.
Q: Well, we have read and thought and gone over the sessions, and discussed it and have no satisfactory conclusion. Stapp says that the wave function represents our knowledge of the system and that the reduced wave packets are more precise knowledge after measure. The question is: is there more than OUR knowledge and which is beyond...
A: The question is: Is knowledge physical? Can it be physicalized? Is not physics the study of that which is physical?
Q: Alright, can knowledge be physicalized?
A: No.
Q: (A) Can knowledge be converted to mathematics?
A: Yes. As we have indicated, mathematics serves as a bridge between that which is physical and that which is not.
Q: So, Stapp quotes Heisenberg saying: the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior." Can that be a correct statement in reference to Quantum Physics?
A: But there are no "units" of knowledge.
Q: He says: certainly our knowledge can change suddenly, and that this fact justifies the use of the term `quantum jump'. " Is a sudden change in knowledge equivalent to a quantum jump?
A: What is the definition of "Quantum"?
Q: (L) A measurement? Quantification? (A) When we say 'quantum jump,' we mean a jump that is typical of quantum phenomena, such as manipulation of particles, electron jumping from one orbit to another... anything that changes rapidly and for which we do not have a mechanical description because we don't understand what is in between, how this jump happens. A sudden change of value, state or something... decay of a particle... (L) So, Stapp says: "at Solvay, physicists, of all people, had come up with a rational solution, based on empirical evidence, in which all of the observed regularities of nature that had formerly ascribed to matter, were present without there being anything like ordinary matter. The mathematical structure needed to account for the classical regularities of nature, plus all the newly discovered ones whose existence could not be reconciled with the classical conception of matter, arose from the mathematical properties of the knowings themselves!"
A: Mathematical properties? Yes. But when one is working from the wrong premise, where does one "get off."
Q: (A) What wrong premise?
A: The premise from which you are quoting.
Q: (L) He says: Orthodox quantum theory is pragmatic: it is a practical tool based on human knowings.
A: In a sense, maybe.
Q: (L) Here is where he attacks: "The wording is again subtle, and confirms the thesis that the mathematical structure of quantum theory is about our knowledge. But it assuages the intuitions of physicists by speaking of events out there at the device that presumably are not controlled by human observers or observations. But the mathematical structure of the theory does not describe those external physical events themselves in micro-physical terms: the mathematical structure is tied to our descriptions, basically in plain everyday language, of the human experiences that we normally imagine to be caused by `events out there'." Now, my question is: do events 'out there' occur?
A: Yes.
Q: What is it that quantum physics is describing?
A: Vague.
Q: Of course I know that's vague. Stapp says: "On the other hand, there is a suggestion that there really are events occurring `out there', which are we are observing, and which do not derive their beingness from our observations of them." Are there events out there that we are observing that do NOT derive their beingness from our observation?
A: Yes.
Q: The events out there derive their beingness from what?
A: From their beingness.
Q: What is at the root of their beingness that makes their beingness different from ours?
A: This is completely the incorrect concept.
Q: What is the correct concept?
A: All is one and one is all.
Q: Well, that is not helping us here. That's what he's saying! He is saying that everything is just 'knowings.'
A: No!
Q: Are we interacting with something out there?
A: Of course, but it is not just "out there."
Q: So, Stapp says: "I call the idea that the formalism is directly about 'physical events out there at the devices,' the Vulgar Copenhagen Interpretation. It is vulgar in the sense that it is coarse, in the way just mentioned, and it is common. [...] This Vulgar Interpretation is common among practicing quantum physicists." And, it seems that he is directing this particularly at Ark, since Ark is one of the creators of what Henry is here calling the 'Coarse Copenhagen Interpretation.'
A: And....
Q: Well, he further says: "In classical physics this distinction is, of course, again present, but once duly noted is not very important. In orthodox quantum theory this distinction is crucial. [...] My aim, basically, is to reconcile the insight of the founders of quantum theory that the mathematical formalism of quantum theory is about knowledge with the demand of Einstein that our basic physical theory be about nature." So, what is Nature and why is it out there?
A: It is not "out there." Why are you stuck on this?
Q: I am trying to get through this. He says: "Of course, pushing the boundary all the way to mind brings mind into our theory of nature. But why on earth should we try to keep mind out--- bottled up, ignored, and isolated from the physical world---when we know it is present, and seemingly efficacious, particularly when the intense struggle of physicists to find a rational way of accounting for observed phenomena led them to the conclusion that the rational way to formulate a theory that accounts for our experiences pertaining to "physical reality" has the form of a theory about knowings, not the form of a theory about matter. [...] In view of the failure of our seventy-year effort to exclude mind from our theory of nature I suggest that our rational aim should not be to resuscitate moribund matter, which we are well rid of, because of the two millennia of philosophical perplexity it engendered. Rather we must learn how better to understand knowings, within their natural habitat, the mathematical structure of the quantum formalism that accurately accords with our experiences rather than blatantly contradicting them."
(A) Concerning this last sentence, Stapp absolutizes Quantum Theory, and he believes that Quantum Mathematical Formalism is sufficient to describe knowledge. I doubt this, because Quantum Theory is a very simple theory, and to describe knowledge mathematically, I believe that we have to go beyond the quantum formalism.
A: "Knowings" implies units of measureable physicality. Not so! Knowledge is not physical, thus constant.
Q: (L) Well, that is sort of his point. He is saying that nothing really exists except knowings...
A: No.
Q: (A) I have a problem here. You say knowledge is not physical. I don't care, just now, what is the definition of physical or non-physical. The question for me right now is, is there some mathematical framework that describes at the same time a kind of a unified theory, that describes both atoms AND knowledge. Can one think of such... whether it can be described by a mathematical formalism that will take into account BOTH?
A: Well, whether or not knowledge can be quantified or not is one question. But to understand the concept, one must rearrange one's mathematical thinking to fit into the non-physical realm. Atoms represent the foundational measurement of material, or physical reality. It is possible to bridge the two, but not to combine the two.
Q: (L) Is quantum theory as it stands, about knowings or about physical units?
A: It is about measurement.
Q: Does quantum physics, as it is, describe matter?
A: This is missing the point altogether. Why does one need matter to measure?
Q: Well, this is our point. He is saying that all there is is mind, that you know things, and that the whole universe is an illusion of your knowings, so that your perceptions of perceptions are these knowings, and that the universe constantly changes based on these knowings, and all that is really changing is your knowings and you perceive your knowings change, and that is the whole thing. He is saying that...
A: There are no "knowings!!!!!!!"
Q: So Stapp's idea about quantum physics being measures of knowings is completely...
A: False!
Q: (A) There is another question, because he absolutizes quantum physics, and it doesn't even come to his mind that there is, perhaps, a better theory than quantum theory which describes more than just measurements, and that is somewhat along the line of Einstein's Unified Field Theory, or something like that. He considers that Quantum Theory as we know it, that its mathematical formalism, is the last word and that we will never go beyond that.
A: Wrong, obviously.
Q: (A) The point is, of course, that no one up to the present time has found such a better theory.
A: But "now" is only the beginning.
Q: (A) Back to the concept of events; you said events exist. Is it true that every event is a splitting of the universe, or branching of the universe?
A: Events take many forms.
Q: (A) When events happen, it means that one particular thing out of many potential things was chosen, or are there other events? For me an event is when, out of many possible things, one is chosen. What are the other possible forms? Can we have some examples?
A: Events can transpire without knowledge.
Q: (A) What is characteristic of events that involve branching of universes? Is it that, for this particular event, consciousness must participate?
A: There is a critical juncture, which coincides with a discharge of energy.
Q: (A) There is a critical juncture in any event or in this particular type of event of branching?
A: Latter.
Q: (L) Does that mean that a branching event must be related in some way to consciousness or observation?
A: No.
Q: (L) Where does the energy discharge from?
A: Consciousness is on one side, and what is on the other?
Q: (L) What IS on the other side? Matter?
A: We have given the clue.
Q: (L) Energy?
A: Closer.
Q: (A) Okay, let me ask a little bit more technical question, in this theory about which I am supposed to write this paper, we are making a kind of a union of the standard quantum theory with something else that is not described by a wave function, which is supposed to objectively exist. But, this is a mathematical model. The question is: in reality, what is it that really exists? What are things that really exist?
A: Gravity is the key. Now, plug in your wave functions.
Q: (L) How can you describe gravity mathematically?
A: Must be possible! Review texts re: gravity.
Q: (L) We did... and either we are so dense, or we can't get it...
A: Not dense, emotionally clouded. When one is in a defensive mode, all is "skewed," including this conduit.
Q: (L) So, what is on the other side is consciousness and gravity?
A: No, review texts and meditate to clear consciousness of emotional poison!
Q: (L) What is the source of this emotional poison? Our reaction to this paper?
A: Yes. Attack, attack. Break needed!
Q: (A) Who needs a break? (L) Now?
A: You do.
[Break]
Q: (L) Okay, Stapp says: "Our ideas about matter and energy ensure that no matter, or energy-bearing stuff, can travel faster than light. Thus this faster-than-light result shows that reality certainly cannot be made out of "matter", or any form of energy, as it is normally conceived. [..] How does orthodox quantum theory cope with this problem? [...] It tries to say that there is no problem, because the wave function represents only our knowledge. [...] The idea is this. Suppose you know that the nearby and faraway parts of a physical system are strongly correlated. Then your new knowledge about some nearby part can often give you immediate knowledge about a faraway part, without that faraway part being affected physically by your act of looking at the nearby part. Thus your seeing that one end of a compass needle points north can immediately tell you that the other end points south, without your actions having any immediate physical effect at all on the south end. [...] Faster-than-light connections in the realm of knowings are thus deemed unproblematic. [...] This argument is based on the normal idea that these knowings are knowings about physical things. The faster-than-light effect in the realm of knowledge clearly does not entail any such effect in the external physical reality. Hence this effect in the realm of knowledge is seen to be nonphysical: to be not physically real.[...] But if one were to take knowledge itself as the basic reality then there might be a problem, for there would be no other "physical" reality upon which to base the claim that the faster-than-light effect in the realm of knowledge is "not physically real". Such an embarrassment might arise if one were to interpret quantum theory literally as a description of a knowledge-based, rather than matter-based, reality. [...] But Heisenberg and Bohr circumvented such a faster-than-light embarrassment by not taking quantum theory seriously: i. e., by effectively rejecting the idea that the knowledge-based mathematical formalism describes a corresponding knowledge-based reality. Thus when Heisenberg describes "what happens `really' in an atomic event" he talks about the events at the measuring device, and hence effectively validates the normal idea that the `knowledge' that the formalism is about is, in the normal way, knowledge about physical events. The knowings are not, in the orthodox view, to be regarded as the basic realities, even though they are the realities that the formalism is based upon. [...] Thus there are two powerful reasons for asserting that the quantum formalism does not give a description of reality itself . The first is that this move saves our common sense intuitions that there is something `out there'; the second is that it apparently helps to save us from having to admit that there are real faster-than-light effects.”
(A) I would like to know who is paying this Stapp and why?
A: Those who are against unlocking the truth are at the "core."
Q: (L) Have we discussed Stapp enough?
A: Yes.
Q: Next subject: Mike (discussion group member) has sent some follow-up questions. His first question is: Does the mystery surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau have to do with what Henry Lincoln describes as the 'Temple,' which is some ancient megalith...
A: No.
Q: (M) He says: I've had three experiences with aliens, who kindly provided me with silicone beads of some kind. Were these physical abductions or just projections?
A: One begets the other. A projection involves transdimensional atomic remolecularization.
Q: (M) When and where was the last experience?
A: April and in sleep state. There is a window which overlooks sloping meadow. Fruit trees, possibly apple, nearby.
Q: (L) Why did you bring up this window and this meadow and fruit trees? Is this the window through which this occurred?
A: Let it play out.
Q: (M) Will the silicone beads show up in an x-ray?
A: No.
Q: (M) In the dream about the 'communication device,' was that a memory of a previous experience, or was it an actual experience that happened that night?
A: Reflection.
Q: (M) With respect to RV and chemical/magnetic alignments improving psychic abilities, can this be artificially induced by locally applied magnetic fields?
A: Dangerous to experiment with. Like Franklin and his kites.
Q: (M) My friend Marc had a dream a few nights ago which he feels is related to the previous one. He was hit in the head by a 2X4 wielded by a child, which immediately woke him up. He caught sight of a movement out of the corner of his eye when he woke up. What was the moving object or creature?
A: Interdensity energy.
Q: (M) Was this, in any way, related to implants and alien encounters?
A: Indirectly.
Q: (M) Was it significant?
A: All is.
Q: (M) Is the source in the books "Conversations with God," a reliable and accurate source?
A: Only partially.
Q: (L) Okay, I got the "Robot's Rebellion," book and I was hoping this was going to be something useful, and he says in here: "Just as the sun is the mind that guides the Solar System, the Galactic Mind guides the galaxy and the Universal Mind guides the universe. The Source is the mind that guides all creation. Sunspot activity is linked to this flow of energy from the sun to the solar system, and this indicates the times when the flow is at its most powerful." Are sunspots an indication that a flow of information is at its most powerful?
A: Maybe.
Q: Then this David Icke says: "The imbalanced consciousness that I will call Lucifer is not an essential part of the positive/negative balance. He is a disrupting, disharmonious aspect of consciousness, which is not necessary for human evolution. More than that, Lucifer's efforts to close off the channels that link humanity to its higher understanding have blocked, not advanced, our evolution." Is this a correct assessment of this Luciferian Consciousness, that it is not part of the positive/negative balance of the universe, and that it has blocked our evolution?
A: No.
Q: Can you comment on the Luciferian consciousness and what part it may play in our evolution and reality?
A: It is part of the lesson plan.
Q: That was my thought as well, but he says that because of this problem with the Luciferian consciousness, the "higher levels of creation began to intervene because Lucifer was imposing its misunderstandings on others and breaking the universal law of free will. Is this true?
A: No.
Q: I have read about this 'decision to intercede' by higher levels of consciousness who look down upon mankind and feel sorry for our terrible suffering, and that somehow, if something isn't done, the whole universe will be overcome by this evil... so it has got to be 'stopped.' A number of sources promote this idea, which then leads, generally, to claims that this or another alien group is part of the 'good guys' or bad guys, or whatever. Is any of this idea accurate?
A: No.
Q: So, what is, IS, and we only suffer exactly as much as we need to learn? Is that it?
A: There is more to it than that, but at this point, you would be unable to comprehend.
Q: Icke says "this Luciferian consciousness is a large aspect of Divine Consciousness which chose to work against the Source. Is this true?
A: Not really.
Q: Well, it SEEMS that the Luciferian Consciousness is working against the Source. If it is not, what is it doing?
A: Balancing where needed.
Q: He says: "Other volunteers, aspects of very highly evolved consciousness, came into the universe and this galaxy in an effort to restore harmony. They did not incarnate in physical bodies on the earth, they arrived in spacecraft, some of them miles in length, while others simply manifested themsleves here. These were extraterrestrials who came to bring knowledge to this planet hundreds of thousands of years ago." Is this true? Yes or no?
A: Neither. [Phone rings and Blue Resonant Human joins session]
Q: (BRH) Is there anything I should know at this point about Kim in relation to me?
A: Vague!
Q: (BRH) Should I pursue this?
A: He is not getting it yet. All there is is lessons.
Q: (BRH) Talk about vague! (L) It is a reflection of the vagueness of your question.
A: Vague in, vague out!
Q: (BRH) Okay, I like Kim and I am considering pursuing a relationship with her.
A: Some like to dance from the proverbial fire to the frying pan, and some do not. But what good would a lesson be, if not containing the potential to learn!?!
Q: (L) I guess that I would say that you need to follow your instincts and don't let emotion run the show. One of the biggest things working against us...
A: Right at this point, the emotional switch is turned on "high."
Q: (L) Most human emotions are not, as some people think, of the soul; they are chemical. And, these chemicals can be stimulated to turn emotions on and off - witness a lot of women who suffer from PMS. All kinds of waves and frequencies around us, including those emanated by other people, can turn these chemicals on and off. This is what happens when the 'hooks' get into your flesh from propinquity. When you encounter a new person, the same thing can happen over again in a very powerful way, and, of course, because of the euphoric effect of a new set of stimuli, it makes you think that 'oh, this is DIFFERENT! This is the SOUL!' I can assure you that, if what happens between two people, occurs due to the physical presence of the other person ALONE, watch out! This knowledge is hard won, believe me.
A: If Devin has questions, why not allow Devin to question?
Q: (L) Okay, I'll shut up. (BRH) I'm getting the sense that the chapter is not closed on this Kim deal. But, moving on, I have a friend named Lisa on the net who is pleading with me for help. She doesn't know if she is losing her mind or what, and I told her I would try to do what I can. So, the question she asks is: 'Am I losing my mind or what?'
A: Or what.
Q: (BRH) Any advice?
A: As with all others, we get into trouble when we first assume, then attempt to collect data to substantiate our assumptions.
Q: (L) I guess that is what they are saying to her, that she has made an assumption and is trying to collect data to...
A: No commentaries are needed, unless you wish to risk destroying the value of the message!!!
[Dog begins to bark]
Q: (BRH) Last time you were trying to direct me to inquire about career and family, and that I did not see it or understand it at the time because I was thinking more in terms of job. I don't think I used the opportunity to inquire deeply enough into those issues. So, I would like to know if you have any further comments about career and family issues for me?
A: Only if specific inquiries are made.
Q: (BRH) I have been toying with the notion of dropping out and writing a book. Any advice on that?
A: Sounds good to us!
Q: (L) [Remarks about Tom French, journalist who is writing about the Cassiopaean group who just recently won Pulitzer Prize] So, if he ever gets the segment about this published, I guess we will be about the only channeling group investigated by a Pulitzer Prize Winner!
A: Oh boy, oh boy!
Q: (L) Are you guys being sarcastic or happy?
A: Both.
Q: (L) [To BRH] Well, the C's predicted his Pulitzer Prize... you know, he went through a divorce after becoming involved with us, the photographer assigned to him went through a divorce, I went through a divorce...they had made predictions about the upcoming changes in his life, and he completely would not believe it, but now that it had transpired, he wanted to know what else was going to happen to him, and how he was going to feel about it. So, the C's told him that he was going to be 100 per cent happy with the upcoming changes... and that is about as far as they would go with it. But, after the fact, he knew what they meant. Hopefully, his experiences are going to incline him to write about us kindly... (BRH) I was very happy about a remark you made several years ago about my youngest daughter, and the fruit that was borne from that comment. Again, last time, you brought up my youngest daughter, and made the remark that the separation was not going to be for long. Do you have any further comment to make about that?
A: Strong soul connection there. Intertwined past lives, positive sense.
Q: (L) I guess you can ask how many past lives together... and go from there...
A: Not important.
Q: (BRH) What is the purpose for our relationship in this time?
A: That is for you to discover!
Q: (BRH) Any hints?
A: Nope.
Q: (BRH) If nothing else, your remark a couple of years ago has really borne some amazing fruit. I really thought she was a pain in the ass before, and I have really loved her deeply ever since you said what you did. There is a very special connection there that I don't fully understand...
A: You will.
Q: (BRH) Thanks for nothing, guys!
A: Not nothing, now is it?
Q: (BRH) No, you are right, it is not. Thank you. I am aware that there must be some overarching purpose to my presence on the internet. I have established a huge number of contacts in an extremely diversified group of folks, and I felt really driven previously to provide data to all of them. But, lately, I am losing my zeal for that.
A: Zeal loss stems from approach. Better to teach than to preach.
Q: (BRH) Teach what?
A: Sharing info attracts.
Q: (BRH) On a cosmic level, I feel that there is some sort of purpose in what I have done up to this time. I have built this structure, what do I do with it now? I have this feeling that it has not happened for no reason.
A: Let it unfold without anticipation.
Q: (BRH) What is my purpose?
A: To BE!
[Conversation with BRH is concluded.]
Q: (L) I wanted to ask a couple more questions: you mentioned Jack and the Beanstalk in a previous session. I am concerned that there is nothing going on at present. We are in a sort of pause mode here.
A: All will be well.
Q: Devin was concerned that you might not think it would be a good idea for him to come...
A: Why would we think that?
Q: I know... but, any comment?
A: It would be good.
Q: Anything else tonight?
A: No. Good night.
End of Session
I hope we don’t have to understand this to “graduate”
