Blog powered by Typepad

« Reconsidering Dannion | Main | Thought for the day »


Very interesting, Michael. Thank you!

I don't have too much problem with a holographic type universe, or a pixilated one. I'm not convinced it's 2D though, partly as these are just one of many theories, e.g. string theory proposes up to 11 dimensions, and although the universe contracts at times, it also expands-as has the universe from the so called proposed big bang.

To me they are saying that all of of matter is made of atoms forming a possible hologram, whereas you if I am right Michael, propose "information" in a different sense is stored there and we take from that to feed our conscious.

Although I quote " Seth " frequently, for me the double slit experiments show thought has already been researched and showed to effect/ change matter, and demonstrate that our conscious creates the universe, and is central to it.

Seth quotes-

‘‘Do not think of the mind as a purely mental entity, and of the body as a purely physical one. Instead, think of both mind and body as continuing, interweaving processes that are mental and physical at once. Your thoughts actually are quite as physical as your body is, and your body is quite as nonphysical as it seems your thoughts are. You are actually a vital force, existing as a part of your environment, and yet apart from your environment at the same time.’’

"Every nerve and fiber within the body has an unseen inner purpose. Nerve impulses travel outward from the body, along invisible pathways, in much the same manner that they travel within the body."

"These pathways are carriers of telepathic thoughts, impulses, and desires containing all the codified data necessary for translating any thought or image into physical actuality, altering seemingly objective events."

"This telepathy operates constantly at an "automatic" or subconscious level, providing communication to back up sensory data. Telepathy is the glue that holds the physical universe in position, so that you can agree on the existence and properties of objects."

"The conscious mind was therefore expected to perform alone, so to speak, ignoring the highly intuitive inner information that is also available to it. It was not supposed to be aware of such data. Yet any individual knows quite well that intuitive hunches, inspiration, precognitive information or clairvoyant material has often risen to conscious knowledge. Usually it is shoved away and disregarded because you have been taught that the conscious mind should not hold with such nonsense. However, your conscious mind is meant to look into the exterior world and into the interior one. The conscious mind is a vehicle for the expression of the soul in corporeal terms.

I also don't see why untestable metaphysical statements (e.g., "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind") are in the mix.

I do, all theories start with a hypothesis, its part of being a scientist to speculate. and even though we find it difficult to test, that doesn't mean a hypothesis is not true, or could not be shown to be true at some stage. And like I said, I think the double split experiments suggest thought creates matter.

At any rate, if the Holometer comes up with positive results that can't be explained away as interference from mundane sources, the information-universe theory will look a whole lot stronger.

Absolutely, this and any other theory. Cheers Lyn.

Ops, sorry forgot the quotations marks " ". Lyn x.

Hey Lynn,

Great quotes from Seth. Are you typing these in from a book? If so, which one(s)? Or if you have this information online, I'd like to have the links.

Also, recently you had a great quote from Seth along the lines of, "Everything comes from desire." Where did you get that one?

Thanks for the info--I'd like to read more!

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck it's probably a duck. I've read literally thousands of NDEs and about 1/3 of their descriptions of their experience say things that corroborate or are congruent with what one might expect if one were living on or in a piece of holographic film.

Many physics experiments also seem to point in that direction and a number of physicists have confidence that our Universe is some sort of strange holographic projection. If I were a juror in a courtroom trial and several different witnesses all pointed to the same defendant I'd be fairly certain that he was guilty as charged. The preponderance of evidence seems to suggest to me that we live in a holographic universe.

Upon the death of the physical body the soul simply transitions to the original holographic film, the place from which our present Universe originates which means that whatever is here should also be there although the physics of holographic film is quite different from what we currently experience. We will no longer be limited by time or space and since all the information in holographic film is spread throughout the entire piece of film we will be able be in many places at once and wherever we focus our attention that will be what we experience.

We here in this Universe can't begin to comprehend the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness in Heaven and perhaps that is why we have to come here because it may be impossible to become separate unique individuals in a Universe in which separation simply doesn't exist. The duality and separation we experience here simply doesn't exist in heaven or the original holographic film that our Universe is projected from.

"I had to merely think of a place and time and I was there, experiencing everything about the place and time and people present."
excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE description,

"I had the realization that I was everywhere at the same time...and I mean everywhere."
excerpt from Carl Turner's mystical experience,

"I didn't follow the article's explanation of how all the data comprising [sic--should be composing] the universe . . . ."

Hi Matt, yep was going to post the site on " Seth" today as its a reasonably comprehensive one that I thought people may want to peruse.

I love his quotes on who we are- that we are spiritual beings part of a conscious universe and that god created us, is innately in us, and that we create as well. So the universe is an infolding/multi-layered one, forever creating anew.

You can read if you scroll down-

"This makes it highly difficult in a discussion, however, for there is no particular point at which life was inserted into nonliving matter. There is no point at which consciousness emerged. Consciousness is within the tiniest particle. There was no point at which consciousness was introduced, because consciousness was the illumination from which the first cells emerged.

"There is a design and a designer, but they are so combined, the one within and one without, that it is impossible to separate them. The Creator is also within its creations, and the creations themselves are gifted with creativity and that each contains an infinite capacity for development---and that each is innately blessed.

"In the dawn of physical existence, men knew that death was merely a change of form."

"What you call death is rather your choice to focus in other dimensions and realities. You do not acquire a 'spirit' at death. You are one, now! You adopt a body as a space traveler wears a space suit, and for much the same reason."

Cheers Lyn.

Roger, see definition 3 and usage discussion that follows:

\\"This makes it highly difficult in a discussion, however, for there is no particular point at which life was inserted into nonliving matter." - Lynn//

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
- Niels Bohr, one of the founders of modern quantum physics

Atoms are mostly ghostly empty space. 99.9999999% empty space to be exact. If an atom were the size of a stadium the protons and neutrons in the middle would be the size of a grain of rice and the electrons little more than wispy clouds swirling around the outside.

And the sub atomic particles themselves are hardly like anything we associate as being matter, being more like the swirling eddies in a stream than a rock or a BB. These sub atomic particles are able to appear and disappear, pass right through solid matter, instantaneously interact with each other and even sometimes interacting with the physicists who study them.

My point is that there is no reality. It is all just a projection, no more real than the characters we see on TV when we rent a Netflix DVD. There is nothing there. We think that our Universe is solid and immutable but the truth is that it isn't. Just like a DVD of a movie time and space don't really exist like we believe it does. It is only our consciousness and our belief that make it real.

Excerpt from Roger Ebert's final moments with his wife,
"But the day before he passed away, he wrote me a note: "This is all an elaborate hoax." I asked him, "What's a hoax?" And he was talking about this world, this place. He said it was all an illusion. I thought he was just confused. But he was not confused. He wasn't visiting heaven, not the way we think of heaven. He described it as a vastness that you can't even imagine. It was a place where the past, present, and future were happening all at once."

Excerpt from the Universe as a Hologram,
"At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously...{snip}...For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion."

Nothing in this Universe is "real". It is all just a projection from someplace else. A school created to teach the soul a few simple lessons.

The physics of holographic film is very different from the physics of what we currently experience. All the information is spread throughout the entire piece of film. Each piece contains the whole, everything is interconnected, and everything interpenetrates everything. Very different from what we currently experience.

Everything that is "here" will be "there" because the place that we call Heaven is the film that our Universe is projected from. The difference will be that our consciousness will be spread throughout the entire piece of film. Instead of existing in only one small piece of space and time our consciousness will feel like it is everywhere at the same time. It will perfectly natural to us just like this feels perfectly natural to us.

excerpt from Carl Turner's mystical experience,
"I had the realization that I was everywhere at the same time...and I mean everywhere."

and from Mark Horton's NDE,
"I literally had the feeling that I was everywhere in the universe simultaneously."

After we cross over we will be like Hiro Nakamura on Heroes (TV show), Masters of time and space, able to move in time and space simply by thinking about where we want to go.

Excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE description,
"From this vantage point, I had to merely think of a place and time and I was there, experiencing everything about the place and time and people present.

I have always, I don't know why, had a very strong "pull" toward Scotland. I have some Scottish ancestry, but no more so than English, Swedish, and Prussian, but I don't know why I have such a strong affinity for the land, its history, its culture, and the music. (No sound in this world can stir the feelings that the sound of bagpipes arise in me!) Well, one of my first "trips" was to Scotland, on a high cliff overlooking a grey, crashing sea during a violent thunderstorm. I was there! I could feel the wind lashing at me and the driving force of the rain while I could see and hear the crashing of the thunder and the sea. All I had done was have the merest fleeting thought of the land and I was there! As I've said, I have no idea why I have such a strong tie to that particular piece of space/time."

I think that part of the confusion is that it is likely we are in a simulation, simulating people already in a Matrix (as described here:

'IF' we are simulating subtle 'spirit' people interfaced to a physical animal form as described here then the semi hidden 'subtle', and past lives and 'weird' approaching death things become explainable.

Coincidences can actually be deduced if we are copied people living in a simulation as described here:

Sorry - The main link I gave above seems to have been corrupted in the comment . . . this one should work . . .

I think that part of the confusion is that it is likely we are in a simulation, simulating people already in a Matrix (as described here:

Although 'horrifying' this does explain why a lot of the 'spirit' and subtle 'clues' *ghosts and nde's for example) are kept well in the background making them difficult to figure out . . .

Roger, see definition 3 and usage discussion that follows:

Posted by: Michael Prescott | December 07, 2014 at 10:35 PM

Here's my rant on this topic:

Comprise is an elegant word as it is used in scientific journals like Science and Scientific American. There it is a synonym for includes, but with the additional connotation that the items enumerated constitute an exhaustive list. E.g., “our flag comprises the colors red, white, and blue” implies that the flag contains no other colors. (The etymology of comprise indicates its all-inclusiveness—its root-word is the Latin comprendere: to seize together, grasp.) The only reasonably concise alternatives are includes, in toto, which can hardly be recommended, and is composed of, which involves the passive voice that writers like to avoid.

Comprise is obviously a word that is called for rarely, where nothing else will do. This exactitude and precision are exactly what make it valuable. Unfortunately, it has attracted show-off writers whose idea of elegance is at the pinky-ring level: something fancy/swanky they can flash at others to impress them. These writers (and readers who have innocently picked up their bad habits) have perpetuated abominations like comprised of (akin to saying included of), because the plebeian composed of was too plain for them. Worse, they have used comprise where its antonym constitute (make up) was called for. Where they should have said, “The colors red and white constitute (make up) 67% of the colors in our flag,” they have erroneously said, “Red and white comprise (include) 67% of the colors in our flag,”

Condemning this, Bernstein says, in The Careful Writer, “The whole comprises the parts, not the reverse.” (In the percentage-type example quoted above, where most errors occur, the parts are red and white; the whole they make up is 67%.)

In his influential style guide Modern English Usage, H. Fowler states, “This lamentably common use of comprise as a synonym for compose or constitutes is a wanton and indefensible weakening of our vocabulary.”

The Oxford English Dictionary lists this usage in its eighth and last definition, characterizing it as, “obs., rare.” Would that it were! Comprise is the most misused word in computerdom, being used incorrectly two times out of three.

Some people—“descriptionists”—would say that any word so commonly misused has been, in effect, stripped of its original meaning and redefined (really de-defined). To them, common misuse would implicitly redefine imply to also mean its opposite, infer, and bi-monthly (every two months) to also mean semi-monthly (twice a month). This is an observational view of language: there's no such thing as a weed, there are only plants. Weed is a value judgment, and hence out of place. The fittest survive, and what survives is fittest. Prescriptions are out of place; only descriptions are relevant. Whatever is, after all, is. Such botanists would, for instance, collect lists of words commonly confused on vocabulary tests and give them the status of synonyms. Thus they would list disinterested as synonymous with uninterested, and deprecate with depreciate. Similarly, they would accept like as a conjunction.

But, by this reasoning, there would be no such thing as a spelling error, if only it were common enough—what a hash that would make of things! A language is a human, cultural creation, not an untouchable natural evolution that we can do nothing but bow down and submit to. In matters involving human creations, change does not invariably mean better fitness or a necessary adaptation to circumstances. Some changes would make the language a less communicative, less-tempered instrument, and we humans are permitted to criticize them, and urge others to avoid using them. Such criticism and communication are part of the natural process, where humans are involved.

In particular, there is no need for another synonym for constitute and compose; certainly not one with a pre-existing, contradictory meaning. With English becoming the world's second language, such a puzzling quirk should be discouraged.

Unfortunately, a well-known dictionary lists compose as a synonym for comprise, based on the popularity of its misuse, and commits all the other sins enumerated three paragraphs earlier, namely Webster's Third New International (and its condensed version, Webster's New Collegiate). Following in its missteps is the more recent Random House Dictionary, second edition. Some readers may appeal to them in defense of this misuse, but by their statistical scientism they have really abdicated any claim to describe good or proper usage.

You make good points, Roger, but I'd disagree to some extent. If a word is used a certain way often enough, the meaning has effectively changed. I'd say this is probably true of "comprise," and also of "disinterested." It's starting to be true of "like" as a conjunction, though this use grates on me.

I don't think recognizing the evolutionary nature of language is the same as accepting all usages (or all spellings). It's a judgment call reserved for borderline cases. In some instances a variant spelling catches on and becomes the norm; the same is true of variant usages.

The word "let" used to mean "prevent," as when Hamlet threatens to "make a ghost of him that lets me." Now it means "allow" - the opposite of its earlier meaning. This makes Shakespeare and the King James Bible a little harder for modern readers to understand. But so it goes. Language never stands still; if it did, we would still be talking like Chaucer or his ancestors.

It's an interesting subject, though. In general, my solution is not to use the word "comprise." In this case, one of 'em got through.

I think it’s an overstatement to say that “Language never stands still; if it did, we would still be talking like Chaucer or his ancestors.”

One aspect of language HAS stood still for over a century (and a damned good thing too): spelling. Other aspects, “style” and “usage,” have long been standardized among professional copy editors, based on bibles like The Chicago Manual of Style, the Government Printing Office Style Manual, and the usage guides of Fowler, Follet, and numerous smaller fry. And that’s a good thing, too.

“If a word is used a certain way often enough, the meaning has effectively changed.”

My counterpoint: Not always. The most common misusage is writing “it’s” where “its” is correct. But that will never be acceptable. Ditto using “imply” for “infer” or vice versa.

However, I agree that there are some instances where language SHOULD change and the grand Pooh-Bahs of usage should attempt to remove linguistic traps for the unwary, perhaps by lobbying style manuals. For instance, “itz” should be allowable as a stand-in for either “it’s” or “its.” “Whom” should be retired. “Miniscule” should be a permissible alternative spelling for “minuscule.” Etc.

Because of the special nuance of “comprise”—its implication of “includes, in toto,” which is too valuable to lose—it ought to be defended more than “disinterested,” which lacks such a nuance. All that is needed is to raise the consciousness of copy editors.

Easier said than done, you say? Not necessarily. I have repeatedly urged Amazon’s Kindle division (via their feedback channel) to add a “low-lighting” feature. (It would add the modifier key-press Shift to the second press of the Select button in the highlight keystroke series.) Readers would use it to flag typos and solecisms. Low-lighted sentences and phrases, which could be accompanied by explanatory user Notes for obscure errors, would be made viewable to all, including the offending authors and publishers, via Amazon’s website, just as highlights are. Publishers or authors could fix those errors on the fly. This would realize a potential major benefit of the eBook revolution. It would also win plaudits for Amazon.

And it would stop language from devolving—i.e., changing in ways that make it muddier and less evocative.

I suspect that many readers would end up low-lighting perfectly correct grammar and punctuation, simply because it looks wrong to them. I've seen many instances of people adding "sic" to a quotation that contains no errors, or adding bracketed words to "fix" a quote that doesn't need fixing.

OTOH, I admit that when I come across a poorly proofread book, I do have the urge to highlight (or low-light) the offending text ...

"I suspect that many readers would end up low-lighting perfectly correct grammar and punctuation, . . . ."

Hmm. Maybe the low-lights page should allow viewers to add thumbs-up / -down, or even comments, to chastise incorrect corrections.

At any rate, the publisher or the author will presumably check with a style or usage guide to see if a correction is correct. So no harm should come from them.

"I've seen many instances of people adding "sic" to a quotation that contains no errors . . . ."

Hmm. Sic means "thus." It can be used, by the original author, to assert that a funny-looking usage or claim is actually correct. (Maybe some of the items you saw were marked by the author, not by the quoter.)

Excerpt from the post at the outset of this thread:

"The same way that matter continues to jiggle, as quantum waves, even when cooled to absolute zero, this digitized space should have built-in vibrations even in its lowest energy state."

Thoughts on this:

Paramahansa Yogananda (author of the spiritual classic "Autobiography of a Yogi") was reported to have said that, ultimately, "Space is a vibration."

(I don't recall where exactly I read this. It may have been mentioned in writing by one of Yogananda's direct associates.)

Regardless of the source, this assertion seems potentially relevant to this discussion.

Some reflections on the possible meaning of "Space is a vibration":

Suppose there exists a boundary-less, utterly homogeneous, impeccably unified field of pure consciousness. Many explorers of consciousness, across cultures and time frames, have reported the existence of such a realm.

Such a boundary-less field of pure consciousness could not, by definition, have any separation -- even conceptual -- because if it did, it would cease to be undifferentiated.

Accordingly, space could not exist in such a field of pure, homogeneous, boundary-less consciousness, because the existence of space implies the existence of a "here" and an "over there," which requires the existence of boundaries, or separation of some kind

Restating: You couldn't have a "here and there"; or “now and then”; or “us and them” in a realm of pure undifferentiated consciousness.

To "give birth" to a creation of any kind -- whether information, or a mountain, or a concept, or a segment of time, or what have you -- a field of pure homogenized consciousness would have to generate a boundary, or a differentiation, of some kind.

(This reminds me of an infinitely vast glacier "calving off" an iceberg.)

What would be that utterly primordial and primary divider? – call it "The Original, Great Divider of That Which is Endless.”

One thing that would fill the bill would be an irreducibly primary vibration of some sort, such as a pure light ray piercing perfect darkness, or a single ripple on a perfectly transparent pond.

Possibly that is what Yogananda was talking about when he said that ultimately, "Space is a vibration."

Perhaps he was implying that the lack of all vibrations is synonymous with pure consciousness. Creation can then be born out of that homogeneity, starting with an “embryonic” vibration that divides pure consciousness; which, thus, creates space – from which further subdivisions and “slicings and dicings” can occur, up to and beyond the Mona Lisa, or the Amazon rainforest, to name two examples.

Until there is that initial vibration-created division, however, the concept of information can not exist, because the existence of information implies the existence of a boundary.

Information, perhaps, "stakes a claim" on creation, as it were, by laying down a boundary. Example: the piece of information called "An Apple" implies the existence of a boundary between “Appleness” and “non-Appleness.”

I'm surmising that this primordial, consciousness-dividing vibration is what consciousness investigators throughout time have called "Om" or "Aum" or the "Great Cosmic Motor," or similar terms.

It may be that information is the foundational building blocks of material creation, springing from the original consciousness-dividing, space-creating vibration of OM.

This would be consistent with reports of inner space investigators across time frames and cultures. This model of creation may be testable by training and developing the searchlight of one's conscious attention.

The comments to this entry are closed.