Thank you for this session all involved!
Special thanks to Ark and Pierre for questions relating to dimensions, physics et al.
Session Date: April 23rd 2022
(Ark) What are densities?
A: States of awareness in interaction with information.
Q: (L) Does that mean the state of awareness interacting with the information somehow affects what is "real" to use a loose term?
A: More or less.
Q: (Ark) Awareness of whom?
A: Consciousness that is capable.
Q: (Ark) I don't understand. Which consciousness? Whose consciousness? I don't understand.
A: Wave reading consciousness units.
Q: (Ark) Where is this wave reading consciousness unit? Where is it?
A: You are one.
Q: (Ark) It means densities are totally subjective, or is it objective?
A: Both.
Q: (Ark) How is it objective? In which sense? How is it objective if it is related to wave reading consciousness unit. Wave reading consciousness unit is subjective, so how can densities be objective? Physics needs objectivity.
A: If the wave reading consciousness unit aligns with the consciousness of the field, then the perception is more objective than subjective.
Q: (Ark) What is consciousness?
A: Life.
Q: (Ark) What is life?
A: Consciousness.
Q: (Pierre) It's getting circular.
(Ark) What is information?
A: All.
Q: (Ark) Can physics describe densities?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) How?
A: Algebra.
Q: (Ark) What kind of algebra?
A: Simple.
Q: (Ark) What is the relation between densities and dimensions?
(L) They've already answered that question. That's in the transcripts.
(Ark) Yeah but there is no answer for that.
A: Dimensions are a human construct we have used as there are no better available terms.
Q: (Ark) But algebra is also a human concept, yes?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Everything we use in physics is a human concept, yes?
A: Which is why you are having so much confusion.
Q: (Ark) But algebra is using dimensions. It's not a human concept. It's an algebraic concept. And we need dimensions if we want to use algebra.
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) How many dimensions?
A: Infinite.
Q: (Ark) Are these dimensions related to space and time?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) But space is 3-dimensional. Where is the rest of the infinite dimensions?
A: Many iterations.
Q: (Ark) Many iterations... Iterations of what?
A: Space and time.
Q: (Ark) Does it have anything to do with quantum theory or not?
A: Very little, actually.
Q: (Ark) Does it have anything to do with Einstein's theory of gravity?
A: Even less.
Q: (Ark) So, with which part of physics it has to do?
A: Modern concepts do not define as such.
Q: (Ark) Can you please explain it, this sentence?
A: There is no relevant construct that you can name or mention from your modern terminology.
Q: (Ark) What about ancient terminology? Were there such concepts that have been forgotten?
A: Possibly.
Q: (Arky) No clue? What concepts would do? If not ancient, if not modern, then what? No hope? Hmm. Okay, I am done.
A: Every object entering your realm does not have to come from 4D. Refer back to Ark's questions about dimensions. Also consider what has been said about window fallers and Flight 19.
Q: (Ark) Okay, I'm already getting out. What about quaternion algebra? Is it relevant to wave reading units?
A: Absolutely.
Q: (Ark) Yes? What about octonions? Are they better or worse? They are non-associative. Ooo!
A: Better.
Q: (Ark) Better! Oh my goodness. Better!
(Ark) I have a question. Should theory of gravity be formulated rather as electromagnetism instead of what Einstein did where he created like a metric or whatever?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Yes it should, yes?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Should electromagnetic theory be extended to take into account magnetic monopoles?
A: Yes
(Ark) I think they are a clue to this chirality.
(Pierre) Yes. It's an enigma.
Regarding dimensions, imagine how 1d being (line in mathematical terms or 'distance' D from non-existence in metaphysical jargon) would perceive the world around itself - it would not see lines, but dots on a plane orthogonal to the direction of its own 'line', space of all 1d objects, lines on a particular direction (which is naturally infinite like infinite number of dots on a plane). So, a 1d being is in fact seen as a dot, a spot in plane of existence. In other words, one dimensional world is world of directions, and directions are perceived as dots/spot on orthogonal plane (of existence) to that particular direction (of existence).
How would now this line get to know its own size if it can not 'see' (sense) it in real terms? Well, property of a line is that it has two ends, so a conscious line might say, "OK, I'll take a reflection from both ends, let's call them Inner and Outer one, and check where they meet in 'orthogonal' plane, let's call this plane Phi plane.", and surprisingly it would get much more info from overlapping its two Phi planes, one from each end, than just information about its size. (check attached image below, please)
So, a line and/or a dot like infinitesimal circle representing minimal line that can close on itself, knowing itself as having two ends and that there are infinitely many more directions in potential that it could lay on, by taking reflection of itself from both of its ends, ends up being aware of, or containing knowledge of its whole being as a cross-section/interplay of two Phi planes of all directions potential to itself currently (that one direction where it lays now).
Interesting thing (another) is that by taking number 1 (natural numbers), i.e. in general anything that can be divided by itself like All/All, 1/1, imaginary unit I/I, Pi/Pi (as a reflection and rotation as parts of a reflection), Sqrt(3)/Sqrt(3), a progression can be noted (like in geometry thanks to Pythagoras and underlying sequences in its integer triples, behind the veil of Euler and his formula) which relates how specific plane we perceive in 3d is coupled to another indicating that they (planes) are not all mutually 'independent' in classical sense when checked against reflection from 3rd orthogonal direction/dimension. That can also be tracked to a progression in building a set (successor).
Digression: Set, contrary to usual mathematics, can also function as an empty set being a unit of itself and divisible by itself - only difference between the set and (itself as) an element of the same set is that 'set' is how it's seen from outside and element is how it's seen from inside (by itself) - boundary being the thing that defines/differs it from the rest of the dimension where it resides.
(Well, that could be a proposition how to 'mathematically define' a consciousness wave reading unit, apparently empty set when seen from outer side.)
So, back to things that can be divided with itself - natural numbers 1,2,3,...,n branch from imaginary unit I at the level of successor (next to 1) which can be noted when we write: 1^2 + 1^2 = 2 = (1+I)(1-I), i.e. at the level of even 'numbers', and then one branch continues with 3 as odd numbers being successor to successor, while the other goes with 'even even' (or double even) combination hinting on rotation as 2Pi, i.e. 2 reflections being one rotation, as potential candidate.
To cut it shorter, a proposition is that the information field Cs and you talk about is this Phi plane (of all potential directions of existence) in 1d most simple case described above, and that this overlapping of two Phi planes ('reflections' of particular From directions, From potential inside and From apparent nothing outside), inner and outer one, like two parts which interplay and make our being in that way, is in fact density from the session above and from the posts in this thread:
During the discussions at Cassiopaea Forum Reading Workshops, in particular those about Wave 8, Ch 68 "As Above, So Below", a lot of interesting ideas and viewpoints have been brought fore (to our awarenesses), which when coupled with reading From Paul to Mark - Paleochristianity gave birth to a...
cassiopaea.org
Also, regarding that thread, a continuation to the story could be:
Free Will after brought Itself out from potential (for All), made those two reflections of itself, one from potential inside and other from apparent nothingness outside, in that way collected Knowledge and gained Awareness of its full Being - All the potential directions/dimensions of existence inside as total Phi field (plane of All existence) and absolute non-existence outside (not one direction, dimension, anything is left outside) as an envelope around All inside. (From outside it looks like an empty set 0, which can be explained as All existence in 1, 1/All which is in fact how 0 as an object is 'perceived'.)
So, a consciousness unit would be just like that, part of inner realm surrounded with mirroring outer envelope, just like a droplet of water - in the ocean it's inseparable from its surroundings while in airy environment it can be drops of rain or molecules in clouds for example. Matter of scale, i.e. concentration, and density.
Depending on amount of potential contained inside the outer reflective envelope (or membrane, as in membranes of cells in living organisms), called D in that thread, we can build a 'density' δ by following relation: δ = div Δ = ∇ · d/d = - ∇·∇ D = -∇^2 D, where ∇ is reflection, like in an instant change, which later down the ladder becomes also rotation as a gradual change which then produces temporal changes in the Phi field (seen as magnetic field on 1d level of existence). Minimal note/change in the Phi field would then be one enveloped unit of rotation around any particular direction (dimension) of existence, just like photons are perceived, having info about both reflections of particular dimension/direction of existence they appear having info about full rotation around that particular direction/dimension of existence. The difference between one and another photon comes from scale, i.e. difference in size of dimension/direction they describe rotation about, which is then reflected in photon wavelengths.
On the other hand, our density would also appear like δ = 1/ λ, kinda like density of a dot/spot on a Phi plane - how much of a length as a distance/difference in that particular λ direction/dimension would be needed for a source behind the actual Δ field in that particular λ dimension/direction - λ would be the size in that direction if all the energy from the Phi field around it (Phi field envelope/body around apparent λ size in that direction) would be put in a vibration/oscillation in that direction. The actual field is by what we would differ one dot from another on the overall Phi plane - brighter the dot (stronger Δ) indicates larger source behind it (and density δ). In that sense, minimal material appearance as massive particles would imply very large numbers for λ, almost the size of Universe (infinity as n=All) but not quite there yet (almost all possible directions), without any Phi field material (no apparent 'charge' energy), only info about reflection From potential direction/dimension of existence inside.
Sounds like neutrinos with only their almost non-existent mass and unit spin - well half of unit since it takes two reflections for one whole rotation, so we could say that minimal material existence as physical particles has knowledge of only one 'reflection' of itself, from only one plane of its existence, and that it's contained in the minimal info field around it. The other reflection, their respective antiparticles like other halves of one whole, bring information about one full rotation around themselves, i.e. knowledge about its whole being closing the line to circle - knowledge of all potential directions there are, making its density appear non-existent as 1/All=0, where one particular direction/dimension was chosen (From potential inside that dimension) and information about full rotation around it is contained within the photon in that direction/dimension. In a sense, reflection From outside plays a role like reflection To potential inside, which is then joined with reflection From potential inside to make one whole From/To (Inner/Outer) body/being.
At the end, about magnetic monopoles.
Their source would be the same as for electric monopoles, charges like electrons and protons, info in the Phi field around their chosen direction of existence, difference being that electric monopoles contain info about reflection (direction) by their very existence around which they then rotate (looking for their 'counterparts') generating changes in that particular Phi field (plane of existence orthogonal to that particular direction) which is then seen as particular magnetic field.
In a sense, body when rotates is like making a scan around particular direction of existence and writing its findings (information about 'observations') in its Phi field around itself (part of the universal information Phi field, plane of existence), and taking those notes is perceived as changes in magnetic field around the body.
In short, source of magnetic field, like a magnetic monopole, would be rotation (of a body).
Neutrinos would be only 'massive' particles without electric charge, because having information about one full rotation (two reflections in particular direction) around a particular direction/dimension from potential inside implies knowledge of its reflection in the form of rotation inscripted into the Phi field around, giving the impression to outsides that choice From (potential in that direction/dimension of existence) was made in one particular direction, breaking in such way +/- (To/From) symmetry. In that sense, mass and charge always come together, one speaking about size of the particular part/unit of dimension/direction in that dimension (mass), and other showing the size of a body in overall plane of existence (rotation around that dimension/direction of existence; charge).
The above also suggests that all perceived bodies are in nutshell From bodies (from potential inside) looking for their To counterparts, suggesting (-) charge like for electrons, which is in fact appearance of minimal information (Phi field) about rotation around one dimension/direction of existence. In that sense, it makes sense that proton is much massive than electron, because it has to have a lot larger Phi body to be able to simulate To body for electrons, natural From bodies of our Universe (not counting neutrinos as they don't have full info about their From direction, only information about From potential inside, lacking the reflection From apparent nothingness outside to which they strive).
Looking at the geometry patterns and shapes, and seeing that one reflection from outside can be divided into two reflections from 2Pi/3 directions to original one, suggests that proton would appear to have 3 From bodies inside, giving image of a reflection To particular dimension/direction to other From bodies, electrons.
More details about the groundwork for above reasoning, maybe in a bit raw format, are in that other thread. Well, I see in all this, above and in that thread, in some of the notes and geometric drawings recently sketched, quite a nice potential for describing our Universe, and would love to join forces with you guys if interested in what's written above.
Thanks again for all your efforts. 
