Seth, Unified Physics and the Connected Universe

[Deb]

I came across this video the other day, a world leader in unified physics of whom I'd not heard of before, Nassam Haramein.

The elaborate intro ends at about 1:30 and then he starts talking about... what sounded to me like what Seth was describing with his "wires" analogy in TES1. Seth quotes are at the bottom.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Here's another video where he talks about consciousness, sounding a bit like Seth's explanation of ATI and the part we play in ATI's expansion and learning. He has an interesting explanation of time too.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Here is Seth:

"—a maze of interlocking wires endlessly constructed, so that looking through them there would seem to be no beginning or end. Your plane could be likened to a small position between four very spindly and thin wires, and my plane could be likened to the small position in the neighboring wires on the other side. Yet not only are we on different sides of the same wires, but we are at the same time either above or below, according to your viewpoint, and if you consider the wires as forming cubes—this is for you, Joseph, with your love of images—then the cubes could also fit one within the other without disturbing the inhabitants of either cube one iota; and these cubes are also within cubes, which are themselves within cubes, and I am speaking now of only the small particle of space taken up by your plane and mine."

"Nevertheless to me the walls are transparent. So are the wires that we constructed to make our point about fifth dimension, but for all practical purposes we must behave as if the wires are there. There are certain planes which I cannot glimpse from my viewpoint, although I have greater understanding of these things than you. I realize that the changes that must occur before I can view those other planes will occur in me, not in the other planes. Again if you will consider our maze of wires, I will ask you to imagine them filling up everything that is, with your plane and my plane like two small bird's nests in the net-like fabric of some gigantic tree."

"I hope you see what I have done here. I have initiated the idea of motion, for true transparency is not the ability to see through but to move through. This is what I mean by fifth dimension. Now, remove the structure of the wires and cubes. Things behave as though the wires and cubes were there, but these were only constructions necessary even to those on my plane in order to make things comprehensible to our faculties, the faculties of any entity. We construct images consistent with the senses we happen to have at a particular time. I have more senses, so to speak, in operating use that is, than you have, because not only am I aware of my own plane but of yours and other parallel planes, even though I myself have not existed in some of those parallel planes."

—TES1 Session 12 January 2, 1964

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

Yes, Nassam Haramein is really great. I don't know if he knows anything about Seth but he certainly seems to have a Seth-like belief about physics.

I first came across him in the 2011 timeframe, when Foster Gamble (of the Proctor and Gamble empire) first introduced his (Fosters) "Thrive" movement blog.

See: http://www.thrivemovement.com/

You can find out about Nassam Haramein and his "connected universe" video here at this Thrive movement blog as well (see attached jpeg file).

I really like his explanation about black holes in relationship to a toroid shape.


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Here's an interesting video about Nassam Haramein and his understanding of the universe, black holes and toroid shapes.




Attached is a picture of the universe as a toroid. Nassam uses this image in some of his talks about black holes and physics.

Along these same lines, in "Seth Speaks", Appendix, Session 593, Seth says the following:


P36
This greater acceleration changes the very nature of the units involved. In the meantime, the characteristics of the black hole itself are changed by this activity. A black hole is a white hole turned inside out, in other words. The electromagnetic "matter" may reemerge through the same "hole" or "point" which is now a white hole.

P33
Now: Using this analogy of the white hole and the black hole: To make this clearer, the white hole is within the black hole. Do you follow me?

P13
These points have somewhat the same qualities. The electromagnetic aspects of thoughts and emotions, the animations, are drawn through points that can compare to miniature black holes. Here their energy momentarily disappears from your system, is immeasurably accelerated, however, and returned through what you might call a miniature white hole — concentrated now, and highly directed back into your system of reality.



-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

The following are some very interesting and very Seth like phrases that were made in the video that Deb posted under the spoiler called "Consciousness" in her initial post under this topic.


"time doesn't exist" "time is an illusion."
"Consciousness is going back and rewriting itself"

"We're leaving information on the electromagnetic field of space-time and that's what we call memory"

"memory is not in the brain"

"consciousness is not in your brain"

"Each co-ordinate in space-time is observing the universe from a different perspective"

"We all gather different sets of information"

"The universe is self-aware, is conscious"

"We are just a highly organized a highly organized bit of the universe where universal consciousness is expressing itself."

You're like the structure of space-time extending itself and feeding information back to the whole"

"each proton is connected to all the other protons in the universe"

"If you want to know about the universe where do you go? "Inside yourself"

"The universe is feeding information to itself. Exactly and that's how it grows and that's how it becomes more and more complex and highly organized. Exactly its getting wiser."


WOW.


-jbseth

[Sena]

"memory is not in the brain"

jbseth, thanks for this quote. I completely agree with this statement. I have looked into the scientific "explanations" on the storage of memory in the brain, and I find none of the explanations convincing. The brain is a dynamic entity with nerve impulses flowing millions of times a second. There is no fixed structure corresponding to a "chip" or "hard drive" which could store memory over a long period.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I completely agree Sena. In TES3, Session 122, Seth says the following (see quote below) and I think that Seth may be correct here.

[... 14 paragraphs ...]

Now again: regardless of current scientific thought, there are at least three different kinds of electric force which your scientists have not yet discovered, and one of these has much to do with the intensity of thoughts as they are formed in the intangible mind, and translated to the physical brain and then into action, as the case may be.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

The physical body, in other words, exists as an electrical body that is not material, that has a peculiar mass but no weight, whose characteristics are apparent in terms of not varying shapes, but varying intensities and concentrations of electric force. In some respects there are differences. The mind, which is not physically represented in the material body, does exist electrically. The brain, which exists physically, is a part of the mind in the electric structure. The organs exist electrically. The skin does not exist within this electric counterpart, although the physical skin does contain electric force.

[... 13 paragraphs ...]


-jbseth

[narvik2]

 In www.newscientist.com  -there is a nice article about 

Physics 25 March 2020 ---  The "wave function collapse" transforms vague clouds of quantum possibilities into the physical reality we know – but no one knows how. New experiments are finally revealing reality in the making...In the minuscule realm of atoms and particles, it looks as though things exist not so much as things at all, but as vague clouds of possibilities.  Then the quantum haze is suddenly distilled into something definite and describable, a thing we recognise as "real". The trouble is that quantum mechanics, the theory that describes this uncertain world, has been mostly silent about how the so-called "collapse" from fuzzy probabilities to solid certainties happens. Some physicists prefer to avoid the question altogether. Others suggest that we need to add something new to complete our understanding of how our familiar physical reality emerges from the quantum.

[Sena]

The trouble is that quantum mechanics, the theory that describes this uncertain world, has been mostly silent about how the so-called "collapse" from fuzzy probabilities to solid certainties happens

Isa, thanks for the article.

[Deb]

I'm glad to read that there are experiments being done. I wish there was a way to just send them a couple of Seth books.

I did find the article, unfortunately only subscribers can read the whole thing, but I really loved even just the first sentence:

"IN THE minuscule realm of atoms and particles, it looks as though things exist not so much as things at all, but as vague clouds of possibilities."

Just change "possibilities" to "probabilities." I remember reading in the Seth books that scientists would contact Jane/Seth for consultations. I wonder if those were written down somewhere and could maybe be published some day. I'm going to be talking with Laurel some time this week, I'll ask her if I get the opportunity.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532750-700-how-a-new-twist-on-quantum-theory-could-solve-its-biggest-mystery/

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I just found this article today on the internet. It may be the one that Isa and Deb are talking about above, but I can't seem to find a date for it. It's interesting none the less and it is an article from "New Scientist".

https://landing.newscientist.com/department-for-education-feature-3/

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I found this statement by Seth today and I think it gives us a good reminder of how some scientists can be just as close-minded as some religious people. That is, science gives us the only "true statements" of how reality works and any criticism of any scientific findings, theories and concepts is just not tolerated.

TSP5 Deleted Session July 12, 1979:

It is fairly easy to recognize the ways in which organized religion discouraged vigorous intellectual speculation. It is more difficult, perhaps, to see that science fears the unofficially directed intellect quite as much as it does the unofficially directed intuitions.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

When children are taught science, there is no criticism allowed. They are told "this is how things are." Science's reasons are given as the only true statements of reality, with which no student is expected to quarrel. Any strong intellectual explorations of counter-versions of reality have appeared in science fiction, for example. Here scientists, many being science-fiction buffs, can safely channel their own intellectual questioning into a safe form. They can say "This is after all merely imaginative, and not to be taken seriously."

(9:36.) This is the reason why some scientists who either write or read science fiction, are the most incensed over any suggestion that some such ideas represent a quite valid alternate conception of reality. In a fashion, at least in your time, science has as much to fear from the free intellect as religion does, and (with irony) any strong combination of intellectual and intuitional abilities is not tailor-made to bring you great friends from either category.

Science has unfortunately bound up the minds of its own even most original thinkers, for they dare not stray from certain scientific principles. All energy contains consciousness. That one sentence is basically (underlined) scientific heresy, and in many circles it is religious heresy as well. A recognition of that simple statement would indeed change your world.


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Just change "possibilities" to "probabilities." I remember reading in the Seth books that scientists would contact Jane/Seth for consultations. I wonder if those were written down somewhere and could maybe be published some day. I'm going to be talking with Laurel some time this week, I'll ask her if I get the opportunity.

Hi Deb,

In the Seth book, NOME, Ch 7, Session 855, Seth responded to a letter that Jane received from a professor of physics. What Seth had to say in that session was actually quite interesting.

-jbseth

[LarryH]

In www.newscientist.com  -there is a nice article about 

Physics 25 March 2020 ---  The "wave function collapse" transforms vague clouds of quantum possibilities into the physical reality we know – but no one knows how. New experiments are finally revealing reality in the making...In the minuscule realm of atoms and particles, it looks as though things exist not so much as things at all, but as vague clouds of possibilities.  Then the quantum haze is suddenly distilled into something definite and describable, a thing we recognise as "real". The trouble is that quantum mechanics, the theory that describes this uncertain world, has been mostly silent about how the so-called "collapse" from fuzzy probabilities to solid certainties happens. Some physicists prefer to avoid the question altogether. Others suggest that we need to add something new to complete our understanding of how our familiar physical reality emerges from the quantum.

Immediately after reading that, I continued to re-read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. This is the next thing I read:

"Perhaps most astonishing of all is that there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them. For instance, when an electron isn't being looked at, experimental findings suggest that it is always a wave."

This was in reference to the repeatable experiment where electrons are shot through slits with different results when "observed" than when not observed. Scientists have struggled with finding a unified theory that explains why things behave differently at the quantum level than at the level of our spacetime "reality". Here's my thought about that: Seth and many scientists say that at the root of reality is consciousness. Perhaps at the quantum level, the consciousness of an electron is not enough to "decide" whether it behaves as a particle or a wave. That is where a "higher" consciousness comes in to influence it one way or another. It may be that an atom has a high enough consciousness to direct its components into a stable behavior. Einstein could not accept the idea that if he was not looking at the moon, it ceased to exist. But just as the Schrodinger's Cat mind experiment does not account for the consciousness of the cat, perhaps Einstein's argument did not account for the consciousness of the moon. If we believe Seth, even rocks have a form of consciousness. The moon is a big rock. It doesn't need us to look at it for it to exist. There may be enough "consciousness" in a grain of sand for it to remain a grain of sand whether we are observing it or not. Alternatively, that grain of sand may only have the level of consciousness sufficient to maintain its organizing potential but only collapses into physical reality when a higher consciousness observes it. So, per Seth, if seven people are in a room with one object in front of them, there are seven different objects, one each created by the observers. But the organizing potential must be there before there are observers, thus the relatively common description that we can expect from those observers.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

It idea has occurred to me that perhaps this particle or wave issue actually occurs because we don't presently comprehend some bigger picture of exactly how atoms, energy and/or consciousness actually work.

As an analogy, perhaps this particle and wave discussion may be like one person insisting that 3 x 4 = 12, while another person insists that no, 4 x 3 = 12.  This occurring because neither person sees the bigger picture, which, in this case is that 3 x 4 = 4 x 3.

In regards to the bigger picture of how atoms work, in Chapter 10 of Seth Speaks, Seth tells us about thought-forms, apparition and ghosts. In this book, he seems to indicate that these thought-forms actually exist in the exact same physical space where we exist. Some people seem to see these thought-forms and others don't.

My thinking here is this, perhaps it is the exact same atoms that appear to make up the empty space in our reality that also simultaneously makes up these thought-forms. Furthermore, perhaps it's the exact same atoms that make up our reality, that simultaneously make up other things in other probable realities.

An analogy here being that there are simultaneously available to us multiple channels on a television, but we only view the one channel that we choose to watch.

Maybe there's a lot more going on here, in regards to how atoms, energy and consciousness work, that we don't presently understand, and maybe it's our lack of understanding these issues that gives us the impression that in our reality, electrons are either wave's or particles.

-jbseth

[Deb]

Hi Deb,

In the Seth book, NOME, Ch 7, Session 855, Seth responded to a letter that Jane received from a professor of physics. What Seth had to say in that session was actually quite interesting.

-jbseth

Thanks, I'll check it out! I've been listening to NOME when I go for walks, but am only at Chapter 5 right now. The weather has not been cooperating lately, it's either been cold and windy or snowing so I'm behind. Should be a nice weekend though, I'll probably finish the book.

"Perhaps most astonishing of all is that there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them. For instance, when an electron isn't being looked at, experimental findings suggest that it is always a wave."

I have the book too, only made it about 1/2" through. But those two sentences alone, to me, support Seth's basic "you create your reality" and "you get what you concentrate upon" (maybe "focus upon" is a better fit?).

So our visible reality could just be moments of collapsed waves that we view as a  consistent reality? Such as frames in a movie... we don't see the individual frames, but instead focus on the movie.

Some people seem to see these thought-forms and others don't.

Do you suppose this could be because some people have more telepathic ability than others, and can "see" a little bit outside of our visible spectrum? They are not "seeing" thought forms with their eyes so much as their inner awareness? If space is an illusion, then everything exists in the same physical space where we exist. Some people see and hear things that others can't.

Furthermore, perhaps it's the exact same atoms that make up our reality, that simultaneously make up other things in other probable realities.

Like the blinking off and on of atoms? They have to go "somewhere" when they're not "here."

[jbseth]

Like the blinking off and on of atoms? They have to go "somewhere" when they're not "here."

Hi Deb,

Exactly. 

In "Seth Speaks", Chapter 16, Session 567, Seth talks about atoms. He says that while they seem to exist steadily, instead they phase in and out, so to speak. He says that, in their "off" periods, they appear in another system of reality. Then further down, he tells us that these fluctuations are actually simultaneous. He says that the probable systems all exist simultaneously and basically, the atom is in all of these other systems at one time.

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In NOME, Chapter 7, Session 855, Seth responds to a letter that Jane received from a professor of physics.  In his response to this professor, Seth's points out some of the differences between his views and those of the physicists. Below is a spoiler that contains this information.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth