Of Hubbard, Quantum Mechanics and ESP

[Mimsey Borogrove]

“ I will not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud ” C. J. Jung

I have been reading Russell Targ’s fascinating book: The Reality of ESP. One of the first points he discusses is the obstacle of disbelief. Many people are unwilling to even look at any discussion of ESP because they do not see how it is possible. It does not fit in with the Newtonian physics they learned in school. Thus they are prejudiced against the possibility ESP could be valid. Therefore, they don’t take the time to study it and to understand the underlying principles that make it make sense.

And they are completely correct. In Newtonian physics the cause comes first. It is constructed with laws like: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, etc. So a topic like premonition is an impossibility – you can’t have the future affecting the present. You can’t have the cause coming after the effect. Remote viewing also can’t work – how can you see something that physically isn’t present? If you completely adhere to the belief in Newtonian physics, consciousness or the existence of the mind is an impossibility – the brain cells and neurons alone can not explain how we are conscious.

Hence the disbelief of Hubbard’s definition of reality that: reality is agreement. Hubbard is wrong – reality is (thump, thump) solid damn it! Why can’t you see that?

However this all falls apart when we look at the universe through the lens of quantum mechanics.

Russell goes into physicist David Bohm’s work – The Undivided Universe. He says “The view of quantum mechanics is that we live in a non-local reality, which is to say that we can be affected by events that are distant from our ordinary awareness. We are on a 4 dimensional space – time holographic universe.”

There is an experiment that was done where they send two photons in different directions. The photons are entangled – if you affect one the other responds, though they are a great distance apart. This happens instantly, as if there were no distance. I am sure you have read how the observer affects the outcome of the observed. Essentially, quantum mechanics is stating the non-duality of the universe, the non-local nature of it.

A hologram is a picture on a photographic glass plate that consists of an interference pattern that when illuminated by a laser gives you a 3d image. If you break the glass, and shine a laser on one of the pieces, you see the same picture, though in lesser detail. Our universe is essentially holographic in nature according to Quantum mechanics. This explains how remote viewing works for instance. You can calm your mind of extraneous thought, and focus on the distant target, and see in your mind the target in lesser detail. You are seeing essentially the broken shard of the hologram on the glass plate.

Similarly, with future time being, shall we say fluid – the future can affect the present in a quantum universe. Russell goes into the mathematics of this 4d nature of the universe in his book – he is a physicist, he studied lasers before being involved in SRI and the government’s program of remote viewing, so he can discuss with alacrity the mathematical proofs that make my head spin.

It is this 4d, non-local, holographic essential nature of the reality we exist in that allows ESP to function and to make sense, and for consciousness to exist, no longer being limited to being a brain function.

Lets’ go back to the observer affecting the observed. If a person has a pre-existing idea in his or her head that ESP is invalid, he will never see any proof to the contrary. He is creating a sort of paradox where it doesn’t exist because he doesn’t believe it exists. Well, you argue, if a person is convinced it is real, isn’t he also creating similar opposite reality? Yes he is. People who believe in ESP have a much higher success rate when tested than those who do not. Perhaps you recall the abduction of Patty Hurst? Pat Price came through and found the abandoned kidnaping car via ESP. He was convinced and certain of his abilities. Thus he got the wanted result. Look it up.

So, you could say Hubbard is correct – from a viewpoint of quantum mechanics, reality can be what you conceive or agree it to be.

Mimsey

https://www.amazon.com/Reality-ESP-...=8-1&keywords=the+reality+of+esp+russell+targ

 

[RogerB]

Ummm, Mims . . . bit too early in the morning for me to try and get my head around all that above!

Maybe after a 3rd or 4th cup of coffee

But you are either sparking at your best at midnight and beyond or you are on another part of this crazy planet than I am on

Later, when I am sorted out, I will return to discuss some of the weird shit in the above of yours . . . not that I believe you are weird or that you believe the weird . . . but what you have cited is weird

Oh, and vive la ESMB!

R

 

[WildKat]

Interesting topic. I remember years ago being fascinated by Ingo Swann and Robert Anton Wilson, two researchers/authors who published some mind-blowing material on the subjects mentioned here. I think they have both passed now, RIP.

I also just Googled quantum mechanics and God, and there are a plethora of authors, nuclear physicists etc, who have delved into the connection.

I don't have any schooling in nuclear physics or quantum mechanics, and most people don't. But my mind is open to the possibilities.

It does seem evident that life, especially human life, is evolving. But is it evolving toward something positive or is it going in the other direction?

Here is one link, chosen at random, about the God/quantum mechanics connection.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/god-is-not-dead-amit-goswami/1111891465

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Ingo, while very good, wasn't the best one at SRI, as he explains in his book. Pat Price was better as were a couple others. They would send a researcher out. He would pick a location miles away, unknown to anyone at SRI then drive and be there at a predetermined time.

Then Ingo or one of the others would describe the location and make a sketch of it.

The researcher would return and tell them where he went. They would compare the statements and drawings to the information the researcher had made of the target location and rate the accuracy.

In the book he has pictures of the drawings and of the sites. They are amazingly accurate.

I know the OP seems off the wall, but, as I was reading the book, after he presented many examples of remote viewing, he launches into the science of why it works based on quantum mechanics and the holographic nature of the universe. I had this flash of understanding of how it works. So, I wrote my post. I'll see if I can find some basic videos on quantum mechanics and post them.

By the way there is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics after all they put a man on the moon using it, but you just need another tool to understand why PSI stuff works.

Mimsey

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Roger & other readers - my apologies - I forget that many have not read the books I have. So it was a big "out R". Please watch the below video - I think it will make my post less weird. Anyway - a brief comment:

What is a holographic universe?

The concept that the universe is holographic in nature has been around for quite a while. After I was posting on ESMB about a year, someone here suggested I read "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. The book, written in 1991, which I bought and began reading, helped me break away from Scientology's thrall. It opened the door to another view on the universe, that made me want to find more about what is going on with life in this universe.

In the below video, the author Michael Talbot is interviewed and he explains what the Holographic nature of the universe is. Please realize that calling the universe a hologram is a metaphor.

This is key to understanding how the universe is constructed. It is based on the work of David Bohm PH.D. and the work by Karl Pribram PH.D. Bohm was a contemporary of Einstein and studied quantum mechanics. Pribram was researching the brain and trying to find where memory resided in the brain. Pribram and his researchers would take rats and train them to run a maze - then cut apart the brain to try and find what part of the brain contained the memory of the maze. They found they could never find the portion of the brain that contained the memory of how to run the maze. No matter what part they removed, the rats would still, even if limping, go through the maze. The memory was stored everywhere they looked. They began to realize in the 60's when holograms were discovered, that perhaps this is how memory is stored, that the brain is holographic in nature, that the memories are holographic in nature.

An interesting idea expressed in the video of how vision and the senses are holographic in nature - which makes some sense - how does the image of reality go from the eyes get into a mental picture we see in our mind?

Mimsey

[video=youtube;6rgYz_BU2Ew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgYz_BU2Ew[/video]

https://www.amazon.com/Holographic-...ds=the+holographic+universe+by+michael+talbot

 

[RogerB]

Nah, Mimse . . . no need for an apology. I was pulling your leg.

It is a good and vital subject you opened up . . . just that, after the night before, and early in the day with too bloody much to deal with that was far more important than a pleasant interchange on the subject, I bowed out for the moment.

In my observation, and this is a broad subject I have spent a lot of time on, both the conventional physics and the PSI stuff, I would say that "science" throughout its history has been limited to the extent of our ability to perceive . . . take Newton: brilliant observations and conclusions but all limited to the extent of human capacity to perceive. And that has been true of all the sciences, chemistry, biology, you name it.

From my observation, the resolution of the apparent discrepancies raised in your opening post will only be arrived at when/as we, the observers, increase our capacity to perceive the actualities of the physical universe construct more directly and do so as knowing spiritual Beings.

This is something I am working on personally and also coaching others on . . . as noted on another thread, we have on my forum a guy who won the International Society of Remote Viewing international competition last year.

Later, I will address the points you raised in the OP . . . but that'll take a little time and forethought as they are complex and often contradictory propositions, though not necessarily actually so, because, as I say they are based on a current human inability to perceive and appreciate the actuality that is there.

R

 

[F.Bullbait]

 

[strativarius]

I'll see if I can find some basic videos on quantum mechanics and post them.

Mimsey

Good luck with that. Quantum physics is so fucking impenetrable only a few physicists half-understand it. Feynman said nobody understands it.

I've given it my best shot - The Emperor's New Mind, The Tao of Physics, The Dancing Wu Li Masters etc, etc. Do I understand it? Nope.

 

[F.Bullbait]

Good luck with that. Quantum physics is so fucking impenetrable only a few physicists half-understand it. Feynman said nobody understands it.

I've given it my best shot - The Emperor's New Mind, The Tao of Physics, The Dancing Wu Li Masters etc, etc. Do I understand it? Nope.

Those of an entrepreneurial streak have been mining the Great Goo since time immoral.

Now that it can have a scientificy spin, it seems more respectababble.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Good luck with that. Quantum physics is so fucking impenetrable only a few physicists half-understand it. Feynman said nobody understands it.

I've given it my best shot - The Emperor's New Mind, The Tao of Physics, The Dancing Wu Li Masters etc, etc. Do I understand it? Nope.

It is weird. As I was reflecting on Talbot's video, the whole business that if you affect one photon, the other, being a great distance away, reacts instantly, as if there's no distance, it reminds me of some video I watched about gravity.
It posited that for the sun's pull on the planets that orbit it to keep the planets in position, it has to be instantanious, or the planets would wander out of their orbits.

In a way it reminds me of Hubbard's idea that the theta universe has no location in time or space. The whole concept of co-existence of theta and the com formula is cause - effect, instead of cause - distance - effect.

Perhaps the quanta that make up our universe only have apparent distance, but actually don't because they are part of the quantum ( theta) universe.

Weird.
Mimsey

 

[strativarius]

It is weird. As I was reflecting on Talbot's video, the whole business that if you affect one photon, the other, being a great distance away, reacts instantly, as if there's no distance, it reminds me of some video I watched about gravity.
It posited that for the sun's pull on the planets that orbit it to keep the planets in position, it has to be instantanious, or the planets would wander out of their orbits.

In a way it reminds me of Hubbard's idea that the theta universe has no location in time or space. The whole concept of co-existence of theta and the com formula is cause - effect, instead of cause - distance - effect.

Perhaps the quanta that make up our universe only have apparent distance, but actually don't because they are part of the quantum ( theta) universe.

Weird.
Mimsey

Yes, but the sun doesn't 'pull on the planets' does it? As far as they are concerned they are travelling in a straight line. The curvature of the STC is keeping them in order remember?

Quantum Entanglement, spooky action at a distance. Beats me. The Irishman Bell is the go to fellow for all that I believe.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

A way to look at the way this quantum business is this:

Scientists have sent photons etc. off in different directions and when they fiddle with one, the other reacts instantaneously despite the distance. The instantaneous change is happening faster than the speed of light. How is this possible? Here's the explanation given in the below video:

You have an aquarium and there is a fish in it. There are two video cameras - one facing the front and the other facing the side. You never see the fish itself - only the 2 images the cameras show you. So you think the two views are of two different fish, and when the fish moves you think one fish is affecting the other. But the unseen reality is there's one fish.

If the universe is holographic in nature, where it is an interconnected mesh or interference pattern, that would answer the question. There is only one photon but we see them as two.

Watch the video if you have a few moments - he says it better and clearer with a bit more detail than I can.

Mimsey

[video=youtube;nJ-3m5W4cp4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ-3m5W4cp4[/video]

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Yes, but the sun doesn't 'pull on the planets' does it? As far as they are concerned they are travelling in a straight line. The curvature of the STC is keeping them in order remember?

Quantum Entanglement, spooky action at a distance. Beats me. The Irishman Bell is the go to fellow for all that I believe.

Um. STC is the space time continuum, as in Einstein? Well maybe. There is a whole other school of thought:

Synopsis 7 – Planets

Earth-like planets and moons are similarly “born” by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and moons and the gaseous giant planets. In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force. So planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails (Venus is still doing so strongly, judging by its “cometary” magnetotail, and it has the most circular orbit of any planet) and consequent modification of the gravity of each body. Planets will quickly assume orbits that ensure the least electrical interaction. Impacts between large bodies are avoided and capture rendered more probable by exchange of electric charge between them. Capture of our Moon becomes the only option, it cannot have been created from the Earth. Evidence of past planetary instabilities is written large on the surfaces of all solid bodies in the solar system. That evidence is in the form of electric arc cratering.

Even in the gravitational well theory, the sun's mass / gravity is creating the well that is pulling on the planets. The earth is 8 minutes away from the sun at the speed of light. There has to be some pull that is strong enough to overcome the inertia of the planet to go in a straight line and remain in it's orbit - or it would fly off into outer space. Whether it is gravity or electric charge, it has to be instantaneous to keep the planet in orbit.



They need a head spinning emoji in their collection.
Mimsey

 

[strativarius]

Um. STC is the space time continuum, as in Einstein? Well maybe. There is a whole other school of thought:



Even in the gravitational well theory, the sun's mass / gravity is creating the well that is pulling on the planets. The earth is 8 minutes away from the sun at the speed of light. There has to be some [highlight]pull that is strong enough to overcome the inertia of the planet[/highlight] to go in a straight line and remain in it's orbit - or it would fly off into outer space. Whether it is gravity or electric charge, it has to be [highlight]instantaneous[/highlight] to keep the planet in orbit.



They need a head spinning emoji in their collection.
Mimsey

Look Mimsey, I'm not a physicist, but our understanding of this 'gravity' issue obviously differs. The sun pulling on the earth scenario is one I left behind years ago in favour of 'warped space'. Your insistence on the sun pulling on the Earth to keep it from flying off into outer space is a bit old hat as far as I'm concerned.

There is no need (as you seem to insist) for there to be a force keeping the Earth in it's orbit instead of it moving in a straight line. As I said in my last post, as far as the Earth is concerned it already is moving in a straight line, except from our perspective it happens to be following a curved path.

Finally, as I understand it, both gravity waves and electromagnetic waves move at the speed of light, and are not 'instantaneous.'

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Look Mimsey, I'm not a physicist, but our understanding of this 'gravity' issue obviously differs. The sun pulling on the earth scenario is one I left behind years ago in favour of 'warped space'. Your insistence on the sun pulling on the Earth to keep it from flying off into outer space is a bit old hat as far as I'm concerned.

There is no need (as you seem to insist) for there to be a force keeping the Earth in it's orbit instead of it moving in a straight line. As I said in my last post, as far as the Earth is concerned it already is moving in a straight line, except from our perspective it happens to be following a curved path.

Finally, as I understand it, both gravity waves and electromagnetic waves move at the speed of light, and are not 'instantaneous.'

I'll see if I can dig up something.

However, the answer is likely in quantum mechanics. Earlier in this thread I mentioned an experiment where you send entangled particles in different directions and when you affect one the other responds instantly - exceeding the speed of light. These experiments of John Stewart Bell's theorem were done by John Clauser and Stewart Freedman at the University of California in Berkley that proved that it happens. It was what I was describing in my earlier post about the fish. If that works instantaneously, why couldn't gravity work in the same fashion?

What I don't understand - if space is in fact warped around the sun, wouldn't that act as a gravity lens? I would think there would be evidence of it's existence. I placed that question on a physics website - I'll let you know what I find.

Mimsey

There are actually two different parts of general relativity. They're often stated as
1.Spacetime tells matter how to move
2.Matter tells spacetime how to curve

Point #1 is actually straightforward to explain: objects simply travel on the straightest possible paths through spacetime, called geodesics. The paths only seem curved because of the warping of spacetime. If you're a physicist, then you would want to know that that fact can be derived from the principle of extremal action (with all the requisite mathematical details), but if you don't want to wade through the math, hopefully it at least makes sense that objects move on "straight" lines. There is no actual force involved when a massive (or even a massless) object's trajectory curves in response to gravity, because it doesn't take any force to keep something moving on a straight line. (I can definitely expand on this point if you want)

Now, I mentioned that spacetime needs to be warped in order for objects' trajectories to appear curved to us despite them actually being "straight." So the essence of point #2 is, why is spacetime warped in the first place? Physics doesn't have a good answer to that. Technically, we don't have an answer to point #1 either, but the "straight line" argument at least makes it seem plausible; unfortunately, there's no equivalent plausibility argument for why spacetime warps itself around matter. (Perhaps someday we will come up with one) All we can do right now is produce equations that describe how spacetime behaves around matter, namely the Einstein equations which can be written G μν =8πT μν
Gμν=8πTμν
among other ways.

[video=youtube;DbbWx2COU0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbbWx2COU0E[/video]

 

[strativarius]

I'll see if I can dig up something.

However, the answer is likely in quantum mechanics. Earlier in this thread I mentioned an experiment where you send entangled particles in different directions and when you affect one the other responds instantly - exceeding the speed of light. These experiments of John Stewart Bell's theorem were done by John Clauser and Stewart Freedman at the University of California in Berkley that proved that it happens. It was what I was describing in my earlier post about the fish. If that works instantaneously, why couldn't gravity work in the same fashion?

What I don't understand - if space is in fact warped around the sun, wouldn't that act as a gravity lens? I would think there would be evidence of it's existence. I placed that question on a physics website - I'll let you know what I find.

Mimsey

I own and have read scores of books on the subject. Unfortunately for me I'm not particularly clever, and the equations, what with all the calculus and stuff, is beyond me. The only way to truly grok what all this is about is through the maths.

Nevertheless, I'm enthralled by quantum/particle physics and I have more trust in scientists than I do in bankers and politicians. Our computers are dependent on quantum physics, and mine seems to be working alright, unlike the economy and the world order, which is a complete dog's dinner.

There is one thing that puzzles me as a matter of fact. Whenever we see photographs of the outer planets of the solar system they appear to be perfectly spherical and seem to have a clearly defined perimeter. I can understand the inner four planets looking that way since their surfaces are solid and there is a clear boundary between the surface and the atmosphere, but the outer planets are made of gas and I'd expect their surfaces to look more diffuse owing to the inverse square law and all that. I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory, I just can't explain it, that's all.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I own and have read scores of books on the subject. Unfortunately for me I'm not particularly clever, and the equations, what with all the calculus and stuff, is beyond me. The only way to truly grok what all this is about is through the maths.

Nevertheless, I'm enthralled by quantum/particle physics and I have more trust in scientists than I do in bankers and politicians. Our computers are dependent on quantum physics, and mine seems to be working alright, unlike the economy and the world order, which is a complete dog's dinner.

There is one thing that puzzles me as a matter of fact. Whenever we see photographs of the outer planets of the solar system they appear to be perfectly spherical and seem to have a clearly defined perimeter. I can understand the inner four planets looking that way since their surfaces are solid and there is a clear boundary between the surface and the atmosphere, but the outer planets are made of gas and I'd expect their surfaces to look more diffuse owing to the inverse square law and all that. I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory, I just can't explain it, that's all.

That's interesting - I never thought of that. Pictures of earth from outer space show the cloud cover, but the edge is hard - perhaps because the atmosphere is so thin? Maybe, since those planets are so far away we can't see it through an earth based telescope well enough to see the fuzzyness? Take a look at this shot of Saturn taken by Cassini - it looks fuzzy to me. There are more shots in the Daily Mail post I took that from.

BTW, in one of the photos of Jupiter I looked at, the background was hard but not an even curve, and star free. I think they used photo shop to mask out the background which gives it an irregular edge where the colors are light or darker, as the masking program mis-interprets what it sees.

I was just watching a video on the holographic universe - and it discussed how in the twin slit experiment - if they send a single electron towards the slits - it goes through the one we are observing. The narrator then extrapolated that the nature of reality is a vast wave phenomena, and where we observe it, it coalesces into particles, along the lines of shining a flashlight in a dark room. Somewhere on you tube I saw a video that showed matter popping in and out of existence. (see video below) Crazy,

Mimsey

Cassini tracks the moon Prometheus as it orbits Saturn. Prometheus is just about to pass behind the planet, and a faint streamer of ring material lies below and to the right of it, in the faint, inner strand of the F ring

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-bring-ringed-planet-life.html#ixzz4qyKKHUXb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[video=youtube;uxlOMa6pdr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxlOMa6pdr4[/video]

 

[strativarius]

That's interesting - I never thought of that. Pictures of earth from outer space show the cloud cover, but the edge is hard - perhaps because the atmosphere is so thin? Maybe, since those planets are so far away we can't see it through an earth based telescope well enough to see the fuzzyness? Take a look at this shot of Saturn taken by Cassini - it looks fuzzy to me. There are more shots in the Daily Mail post I took that from.

Many photographs have been taken in the vicinity of these gas giants (tens of thousands of miles away) and they still look as if they have an almost solid surface.

I was just watching a video on the holographic universe - and it discussed how in the twin slit experiment - if they send a single electron towards the slits - it goes through the one we are observing. The narrator then extrapolated that the nature of reality is a vast wave phenomena, and where we observe it, it coalesces into particles, along the lines of shining a flashlight in a dark room. Somewhere on you tube I saw a video that showed matter popping in and out of existence. Crazy,

Don't you just love the double slit experiment? Left to its own devices the particle goes through both slits at once and interferes with itself - until you actually monitor each slit, at which point it the interference pattern breaks down.

 

[RogerB]

Just as food for thought, and as a passing shot from me as I depart for the morning to handle some outside business . . .

The/this quantum mechanics-cum-theoretical physics thingie . . .

Have any of youse observed that the best and the brightest of the science have not been able to elucidate nor state or define exactly what energy is . . . that is: what is the stuff of it, of what is it comprised . . .

And that is a pretty big omission in the scheme of things in the context of what they tell us their science deals with and addresses . . .

Go to the science dictionaries and see what they say

Ummmm, "energy" is the ability to do work????? Is that the best they can come up with?? or otherwise to be more wordy, energy is:
The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. etc.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Many photographs have been taken in the vicinity of these gas giants (tens of thousands of miles away) and they still look as if they have an almost solid surface.

Don't you just love the double slit experiment? Left to its own devices the particle goes through both slits at once and interferes with itself - until you actually monitor each slit, at which point it the interference pattern breaks down.

Maybe the ammonia ice in the upper atmosphere of Saturn gives it a hard edge?

I know you aren't much for watching videos but there's a series called the primer fields series, and they are maddeningly slow to watch, but he shows how the double slit works, I think in video 2 or 3. Maybe you could watch them at a computer cafe where they have a faster internet. If you like this stuff - they are quite amazing.

Pressure

Another difference between the atmospheres of Saturn and Earth is the atmospheric pressure. Saturn’s radius is about nine times that of Earth’s, and all that gas produces high pressure as you descend into the atmosphere. NASA’s observations of the planet suggest that at its core, the pressure is more than 1,000 times that found on Earth, enough to force hydrogen first into its liquid state, and finally into a solid metal at the planet’s core. By comparison, the atmospheric pressure levels common on Earth exist only in the uppermost regions of Saturn’s atmosphere, where clouds of ammonia ice float in the frozen extremes.

[video=youtube;9EPlyiW-xGI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI&t=12s[/video]