Seth on probabilities

[Sena]

"Seth Speaks" has 183 references to probabilities or probable systems, and NOPR has 118 such references. On the other hand, I am not aware that Seth made any reference to quantum physics. Rob did mention quantum physics several times in his comments on the Seth teaching. The idea of probability and the associated maths are an essential element of quantum physics, so I wonder why Seth never referred to the latter. I think it may be because Seth never learned quantum physics during one of his human incarnations; he may have learned the significance of probabilities from an extra-terrestrial source such as his Entity.

Here is a Seth quote on "probable events":

"The brain can be called simply the physical counterpart of the mind. By means of the brain the functions of the soul and intellect are connected with the body. Through the characteristics of the brain, events that are of non-physical origin become physically valid. There is a definite filtering and focusing effect at work, then. Practically speaking, you do indeed form the appearance that reality takes through your conscious beliefs. Those beliefs are used as screening and directing agents, separating certain non-physical probable events from others, and bringing them into three-dimensional actuality. Other probable events could just as well become physically experienced ones. Those beliefs about yourself form your own self-image, and define your concepts of what is possible or not possible for you. You will choose from those non-physical probable events, therefore, only those you feel you are in accord with." (from "The Nature of Personal Reality: Specific, Practical Techniques for Solving Everyday Problems and Enriching the Life You Know (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: http://amzn.eu/3kp7mHS

This is obviously about "creating your own reality", but it indicates the limits on such creation. We choose from a limited range of probable events. Thus, I am often able to choose between health and illness, but I cannot create a reality in which I am on the planet Mars tomorrow.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

Thanks for starting this new topic on Probabilities. I love this topic.

It's funny because I was going to say that I think the reason that Seth didn't say much about quantum physics, had to do with Jane's limited knowledge on the topic. Somewhere I seem to recall he said something to this effect, in regards to a complex subject that he was discussing, though I'm not really sure it was necessarily quantum physics.

I'm not really sure what or where the limitations of probabilities are. I'm thinking that maybe what he meant by your bolded quote was something like, if you really don't believe that you can levitate, then you typically won't choose to experience a probability where you can levitate.  On the other hand, perhaps those people who do believe that they can levitate, can actually choose a probability where people levitate.

jbseth 

[Deb]

Wow thanks Sena, it never occurred to me that Seth didn't talk mention quantum physics by name. Physics in general does come up a bit throughout the books, but yes, it's usually Rob's comments in his notes. Maybe what Seth was explaining about the nature of reality is just reality to him and not a science as it seems to us?

Also Jane was not as knowledgeable about physics like Rob was and so her vocabulary would be somewhat limited, as jbseth pointed out. "Ruburt, incidentally, is to be congratulated, as he is just beginning to read books on physics, in order to intellectually keep up with the material as I give it." (Sess. 101 TES) Jane admitted she was not great in the sciences in college:

Jane: "I was lousy in science in college. I think I went through biology three times before I got a D."
Village Voice Interview, Part 1

There were also some language limitations concerning mathematics (jb this may be the quote you were thinking about?):

"The mathematical data I have also somewhat explained. This is more difficult because of Ruburt's lack of mathematical vocabulary, and the fact that conceptual patterns were given in intuitive mathematical language—not in a precise narrow range at all, and answering deeper questions than those asked. Nevertheless the answers to the particular questions are inherent within the material given, I believe, and become obvious by reference."
—TES9 Session 462 February 3, 1969

You will choose from those non-physical probable events, therefore, only those you feel you are in accord with.

We choose from a limited range of probable events.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me that we limit our own options based on our beliefs. There are also the root assumptions/laws we agreed upon for our system of reality, famously:

"If you were born without a limb, for example, your power in the present cannot automatically regenerate it in this life, although in other systems of reality you do possess that limb."
—NoPR Chapter 15: Session 656, April 16, 1973

[I'm interpreting this to mean that alternative pre-birth probabilities also exist even for the soul that is incarnating with chosen physical or mental challenges.]

And then there's this to consider:

"Within certain limits there is free will. Yet these limits themselves were set, or if you prefer, chosen, by the entity itself for any given present personality; and at the entity level free choice or free will is much more extensive, and really has much more meaning." 
—TES1 Session 36 March 18, 1964 

And so that also whittles down our probable choices. But I bet we still have a vast amount of options that most of us don't explore because we sort of have blinders on. I'm just thinking right now about all of the amazing stories of people who came from the brink of death or disaster and defied all odds to become healed (some spontaneously) or successful in one way or another. That has nothing to do with luck.

Sometimes I think back over all the decisions and events in my past that brought me to where I am today. Sort of a life review. And I wonder how different my life could be if I'd made different decisions. It really stretches the imagination.

[Sena]

and at the entity level free choice or free will is much more extensive, and really has much more meaning

Deb, that makes sense. It's the entity which decides on sending an individual to an Earth existence.

Maybe what Seth was explaining about the nature of reality is just reality to him and not a science as it seems to us?

Yes, science is a painstaking process of trying to discover the nature of reality, while the nature of reality is fully evident to the entity.

[Sena]

On the other hand, perhaps those people who do believe that they can levitate, can actually choose a probability where people levitate.

jbseth, I agree that levitation and out-of-body experiences are possible for human beings, but perhaps not in every incarnation.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Here's an interesting quote from Seth having to do with the relationship between reincarnational selves and probable realities.  This quote comes from "The Early Class Sessions, Book 3" ESP Class session February 16, 1971.

Now I knew that sooner or later someone would bring up that bugaboo. And it has taken me some time to get the idea of probable realities to your heads, and I knew that someone at sometime would ask me about reincarnational selves and so I suppose it behooves me to try to give you an answer, and it is this.
You are presently within one system of reality, one probable reality, the reality that you now know and form physically. Now within that one reality you have reincarnational selves, they belong within the concept of that existence. All probable systems do not have reincarnational existences. Some do and some do not, so that these exist only here, as far as you are concerned for the moment.

And I know I am only going to confuse you but if you have probable selves then you know there are probable universes and probable earths and probable histories of your earth and you see what this is going to do to your concept of reincarnation as you now hold it. So within the system that you know, you also have probable reincarnational selves within those probable historical earths. Now this does nothing to deny the basic integrity nor validity of what you may prefer to call the soul. It simply means that the inner self also is far more creative, far richer, and far varied and much different than you originally supposed.

jbseth

[Sena]

Now within that one reality you have reincarnational selves, they belong within the concept of that existence.

jbseth, thanks for this quote. My understanding of this is that these reincarnational selves exist NOW as well as in the past. I have become aware of a possible reincarnational self, and it has become evident to me that this self has influenced my personality, decisions, and actions in my present life. I was not aware of this self at the time I made those decisons, but one or two key decisons I made in my twenties were "odd" and "illogical" with hindsight. At the time I made those decisions I was a "devout" Roman Catholic and did not believe in reincarnation.