Hotcrowd's Blog

Wake up and Sieze the Day!

Archive for the ‘Mind’ Category

Try alternate nostril breathing techniques. It works well for me. Hope it helps you too.

Posted by hotcrowd on September 26, 2010

Thehealthylivinglounge.com 12 great reasons to do alternate nostril breathing techniques

The nasal cycle fluctuates regularly every 90 – 120 minutes. Each brain hemisphere and its correlating nostril will interchange in dominance over the bodily functions during this cycle. Your breathing has a profound effect on how your body and mind function together. This relationship has a practical application. You can synchronize your dominant nostril to be in accordance with your specific daily activities.

Here is a list of activities that are best performed when the corresponding nostril is open.

Left nostril open:

Long-term actions, starting a long journey, singing, playing a musical instrument, gardening, lending money, buying clothes, meeting relatives, treating illness, meditating.

Right nostril open:

Short-term actions, making a short journey, studying difficult skills, writing manuscripts, sculpting or carpentry, borrowing money, practicing medicine, driving a car, eating, working with numbers and accounts, expressing anger.

Here is a quick breakout of what parts of your life are dominated by either left or right nostril open.

Right nostril open: Speech, writing, abstract thinking, time orientation, logic, discussions, details, planning, analysis, problem solving.

Left nostril open: Nonverbal memory, visual and spatial skills, intuition, emotional or musical sensitivity, synthesizing information, perceiving holistically, patterns perception, artistic creativity.

Posted in Amazingly Helpful Resources and Sites, Body, Hobbies and Leisure, Mind, Personal Improvement | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

On the Quantum Psychodynamics of Dreams

Posted by hotcrowd on August 13, 2010

On the Quantum Psychodynamics of Dreams

In the one hundred years since the beginning of the science of the unconscious in Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, there is very little that has changed in that science. It was Freud’s dream that this new science, which he called psychoanalysis, would someday take its place among the other sciences, with which it could be freely integrated.
The problem that has frustrated attempts to integrate psychoanalysis with the rest of science is this fundamental principle of mind: Unconscious events are not observable. And what kind of scientific principle is this, that there are certain events that cannot be observed? There is only one such principle in all of science, and that is the principle of the quantum wavefunction. The quantum wavefunction cannot be observed, it can only be inferred from observable data. The quantum wavefunction cannot be observed because it is a superposition of possibilities. Only one possibility out of all the possibilities of the wavefunction can be observed. If we observe the same wavefunction over and over again, we will eventually sample the full range of possibilities, and be able to determine the frequency of occurrence of each one. In this way, we can infer the wavefunction, y , from the observable data. Everything that we observe arises out of the possibilities of the quantum wavefunction of the universe.
The process of consciousness arising out of the unconscious is the very same process as the process of observation of the wavefunction. This leads to the inescapable conclusions that the unconscious is the wavefunction, and that consciousness is what we call reality. But the events of the unconscious are no less real than the events of consciousness. The possibilities of the wavefunction are real. Do the possibilities of the wavefunction, of the unconscious mind, which are already real, become any more or less real when they are observed? This is where physics seems to be stumped. This idea of an arbitrary reality arising out of observation of the quantum wavefunction was the cause of Einstein’s statement, “God does not play dice.” Gautama Siddhartha said, “The unreal never is, the real never is not.” This is relativity in a nutshell.
Something that is already real cannot become more real. Consciousness is a perspective, it’s a way of seeing. Consciousness is like the tip of an iceberg that is held up in the buoyancy of a vast ocean. The tip of the iceberg is the object—the particular object, the object of consciousness. The much larger mass, which is submerged, is the unconscious subject, which is both the beginning and end of the object
Before Freud’s discovery of the unconscious, science operated on the surface, on the appearance of a reality that was hidden from view. This appearance is what we call sensation. It is the conscious terminus of an unconscious process.
The “I”.
The individual or particular mind is a single ray. The ray is described by a word – I, as it is applied by the individual to his or her own self. The ray is the sum of all the moments that comprise the life of the mind – the life of the individual I. This I exists in the timeless field that underlies each moment, giving rise in the moment to the quantum of experience. Everything arises out of the quantum field, the unconscious mind. The field of the individual I is the individual mind, psyche, or soul. Everything that arises out of the field, that comes into consciousness, arises along with its unconscious complement. This principle is a fundamental principle of science. It is called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, or the principle of complementarity. In Buddhism, it is called the principle of dependent coarising. Nothing can arise from the field in a non-dependent fashion, that is to say, nothing can arise from the field without its complement. This is why the principle of complementarity is also called the principle of dependent coarising. If it were not for the principle of complementarity, nothing could ever arise from the quantum field. The principle of complementarity allows an evanescent or fleeting violation of the conservation of energy. This violation of the conservation of energy ushers time into existence. Time and energy are complementary according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For every thing that is ushered into existence, there is a quantity of energy, and a complementary quantity of time. Complements have a simple mathematical relation to one another. This relation is called the Heisenberg equation. They are reciprocals, in the simple form y = 1/x. The numeral one, here, is the single quantum. The single quantum has a numerical value, which is Planck’s constant. The quantum is the fundamental atom or atomic unit of reality. Everything that arises out of the field exists for an interval of time which is related to its change in energy state. This interval of time cannot be further subdivided. A thing can only come into existence along with a discrete interval of time. This relation between things and time is implicit in the Heisenberg equation.
It is useful here to pause for a moment and reorient ourselves to the nature of the quantum field. In the field, there is neither space nor time. Space and time arise from the field. Since, in the field, there is neither space nor time, there is no distinction in the field between the beginning and the end of things. What we call cause and effect are not relevant in the field, since the beginning and the end of a thing are part of the same whole. The principle or causality – the principle that a every effect has a cause, which precedes the effect, and every cause is the effect of a prior cause – does not apply to the origin of things out of the field. The time that is spanned by duration of the thing cannot be divided, or, in other words, the space within the duration is timeless. Within the span of the duration of a thing, our ordinary concept of causality is suspended.
The rules of the field, of the quantum unconscious, are totally different than the rules of the conscious mind. In the magic theatre of our dreams, there is neither space nor time nor length nor breadth nor depth. What we call a dream cannot be conceived by the conscious mind. The twilight of our dreams is the borderland between two worlds. We may have one foot in one, and the other foot in the other, but we can never have both feet in both.
The duration of the “I” is called a moment. The moment is, for the I, the atom of experience. The moment is the briefest experience that the I can have. This is a phenomenon that is well-demonstrated in cinematography. The duration of the moment of the I is a fraction of a second. Images that are flashed before us more quickly than this do not appear as discrete images, but as a moving picture. The image on a television screen is actually a single dot of one of three primary colors. Again, the dots are flashed across the screen so quickly that they form a moving image.
So, like every other thing or entity that arises out of the unconscious, quantum field, the I coarises dependently only with a duration of time. The duration over which the individual I arises is dependent on the change in the energy state of the brain/universe. The magnitude of a change in energy state is inversely related to the quantum duration over which that change occurs. We are referring here to the state of the whole brain, which is an aggregate or compound entity comprised of a number of simpler entities. These simpler entities, which range in scale from elementary particles to complex organs of the brain, form a hierarchy of systems. Here we must pause for a moment and discuss the nature of the conscious mental state. In the mechanistic terms of classical mechanics, there is a hierarchy of systems by which the parts, in mutual interaction, form a whole, which is a system. This is the essence of general systems theory. Each system is a sub-system of a larger system, it is part of a larger whole. The mutual interactions of the parts give rise to the whole. The whole is the nexus of relations between its constituent entities.
In dependent coarising, in the process of the unconscious, quantum field, what we call the hierarchy of systems is bi-directional. The duration is a whole that cannot be further divided, so that, in effect, the whole gives rise to the parts, and the parts also give rise to the whole. This principle, which we call reciprocal causality, is the foundation for reciprocal systems theory, in which the functioning of the system is its own final cause. Later we will examine this idea and its relationship to consciousness and the universe. Our consciousness, our perception of an integral reality in the moment, which is an integration of all the thoughts, feelings, and sensations of the moment, is a single whole. The unity of this whole is the unity of the “I.”

Dreaming
Imagine a place where everything that can happen, does happen; where past, present, and future are all together; a kaleidoscope of worlds – form without substance, ripples upon ripples upon waves upon waves of pure experience – limitless worlds of possibility, existing beyond time. This is the quantum reality. This is the world of the unconscious mind. We visit it each night, in our dreams. In 1900, when Sigmund Freud first published The Interpretation of Dreams, he was scorned by the academic world. The whole idea that this unconscious world of dreams is primary, and that out of that world our conscious minds extract what we call the real world, seemed ludicrous. The unconscious had had its heyday in the 1880’s and ‘90’s, fueled by the incredible findings of hypnosis. But, except for the minds of Jean Marie Charcot and Pierre Janet, there were few that understood hypnosis, and its new practitioners were mostly charlatans, out to make a quick buck, playing games with an extraordinary power that they neither understood nor deserved. The same thing was to happen again, one hundred years later, on the 1980’s and ‘90’s, when the abuses of hypnotism became so extreme that its use was proscribed to even capable practitioners. And what about dreams? Everyone knew that they were nonsense. Who is this man, Sigmund Freud, to say that he has unlocked their secrets? Why, he is obsessed with sex! He’s saying that everything we hide in the light of day comes out in disguise in the dark of night—vial, incestuous, murderous thoughts, obscene desires, unbecoming of civilized human beings! He’s saying that deep down inside, in our unconscious minds, we are animals! Sigmund Freud is generally credited with the discovery of the unconscious, and, although the concept of the unconscious can be traced back at least as far as Aristotle, it was Freud who truly gave us the first definitive description of unconscious process in his Interpretation of Dreams. According to Freud, the contents of the unconscious are possibilities or potentials. Primary process is unconscious. Secondary process, or secondary elaboration in the case of dreams, occurs in the borderland of consciousness, in the preconscious mind.
Everything that is conscious arises from the unconscious. This was Freud’s great discovery. Today we have a burgeoning field of “consciousness studies,” yet we never here a whisper from the expert philosophers and scientists in this field about this fundamental principle. Why is it that no one will recognize the unconscious, quantum reality? I think the answer is fear. As Freud so brilliantly described in The Interpretation of Dreams, the unconscious contains many things that we will not allow to enter into consciousness. During the day, the conscious mind is very active in focusing attention on those things we wish to think about, or to admit to ourselves. The activities of the preconscious mind in excluding unwanted elements were called defenses by Freud. And what are we defending? Our own self images, our own concept of ourselves, our own egos. Part of doing this, one of our defenses, is to deny the existence of the unconscious, and to deny its primacy in all thought processes. There are two great conspiracies of silence which characterized twentieth century science, and they are one and the same: 1) silence about the quantum reality, and 2) silence about the unconscious reality. They are not conspiracies of people in the ordinary sense. The exclusion of the unconscious reality is not conscious, it is preconscious, just as Freud said.
Consciously, when we learn about the quantum reality of superimposed potential worlds, we find it to be ridiculous. Our recognition and understanding of the quantum reality is unconscious, because the quantum reality is the unconscious reality. Now, let’s look at a dream, and interpret it using some of the principles of the unconscious we have just learned. A 47 year-old male attorney was particularly troubled by this dream, and asked me to interpret it. This is an emotionally healthy man, a friend, and not a patient of mine. We will call him Frank. Frank dreamed that he was walking on the campus of his undergraduate college. All around him were men with guns, and he was very fearful that the Viet Cong (VC) were waiting in ambush. Frank had never been in Vietnam, but was in college while the war was going on in the late 1960’s, and was very active in the anti-war movement.
This dream took Frank back about 30 years. Yet, he said, it was as real in his dream as it was then. Did Frank actually go back to his old alma mater? Yes, he did, and no, he didn’t. The unconscious reality is not a reality of time and place, it is a reality of mind. For the unconscious, “Yes, he did,” and, “No he didn’t,” are just two ways of looking at the same thing, and that is Frank going back to his alma mater. The presence of the VC on his campus seemed most peculiar to Frank. The two, his college campus and the Vietnam War, are associated in his mind. We need look no further for the explanation than this. In the unconscious reality, there is no respect for place and time. Distance is measured by the proximity of the association, not by meters and seconds. Why did Frank have this dream on one particular night, as opposed to any other? We don’t actually have to find a reason, since there is always some possibility of any unconscious association arising in the mind at any time. But we can increase the probability of an association arising by “priming” or suggesting the association to the unconscious mind. In Frank’s case, he had watched the news that evening, and had seen a video of the conflict in the streets of Indonesia between the students and the military government. Although Frank did not consciously make the association with Vietnam and the demonstrations on his college campus, he made the unconscious association. We know this because, in the unconscious, anything that can happen, does happen. Now, we want to find a meaning of the dream for Frank. We want to find out why it has been troubling him. The fact that it is troubling him, Freud tells us, means that a repressed memory has been brought into consciousness. This may, perhaps, be the reason why he was not conscious of the association while watching the news that evening. Vietnam veterans all over the country saw the news coverage of the events in Indonesia that evening, and were having bad dreams on the very same night as Frank. I know this, because I have been treating these patients for many years. The disorder that these veterans suffer is called post-traumatic stress disorder, and the dream associations they exhibit are symptoms of that disorder. But Frank was never in Vietnam. Or was he? We said that the unconscious is a reality of mind, without respect for time or place. Frank was exhibiting a post-traumatic stress syndrome. The Vietnam War was traumatic for Frank for a number of reasons. Many people, his own age, were fighting and dying in that war. He himself, under different circumstances, may have been drafted to fight. And, in a sense, he was fighting, as a student protestor, on the streets of his college campus. His fear of the VC, never realized consciously during his student years, had been hidden in his unconscious for 30 years. He had never experienced this fear consciously until that night. But, as Freud taught us, such an unconscious fear shows up in other ways, and is defended against in other ways. Perhaps this is the reason why Frank, who was studying engineering at the time, later went on to become a lawyer. Perhaps, like so many actual veterans, Frank, an “unconscious veteran” of the Vietnam War, was still fighting.

The Brain/Universe
We spoke earlier about the quantum world of possibility, and the overlap or superposition of possible worlds which is the quantum reality. The same kind of overlap or superposition of states of the brain/universe characterizes the unconscious mind or psyche. Why do we use the term brain/universe to describe the mind? The brain cannot be separated from the universe, and the mental process has, as its substrate or medium, the entire universe, for all time. So, every state of the brain is also a state of the universe. Things cannot be separated on the basis of time and place in the quantum reality. Everything is connected in the quantum universe. Everything is interrelated, not by bridges of matter or energy, but by bridges of experience. Every time we make a decision, we create a universe. The range of possibilities that are involved in making a decision are all distinct states of the brain/universe, or, otherwise stated, every possibility is a virtual universe, a universe of mind. Let’s look at this a little more closely.
That state of the universe is described by the function psi, y , otherwise known as the wavefunction. There are billions upon billions upon billions of separate variables or dimensions that would go into a determination of the state of the universe. The wavefunction of possible states of the brain is a component of the wavefunction of the universe. The wavefunction of the brain, the unconscious mind, is, however, in no way separate from the wavefunction of the universe. Separating the brain/universe into two separate entities, the brain and the universe, is a convenience for the sake of discussion. In quantum physics, the state of the universe is described as a single ray in a higher dimensional space or hyperspace. The dimensions of this hyperspace are not dimensions of space and time, they are inner dimensions, dimensions of experience. The ray of the universe can be visualized in three dimensions as a beam of light from the sun, piercing the clouds, and splitting into separate rays. The origin of the ray is always the same. The ray originates in the sun. In the same way, the ray that describes the state of the universe always has the same origin, a single point in inner space. Where is this point in our “external” reality of space and time? It is not at any particular point in space and time. It is everywhere, for all time. Everything, every event, every thought, every memory, proceeds from that single point. In this quantum reality, this reality of the unconscious mind, each one of us is a ray, a beam of light proceeding from that point, that sun. Have you every seen the rays of the sun, piercing through spaces between the clouds, forming many separate rays? This is quite a beautiful sight, which is not uncommonly seen after a storm. We can think of ourselves, our own individual psyches, as such individual rays. Standing on the ground, we view the rays as separate. They seem to fan out, in different directions, around the sun. This is an illusion created by our perspective in relation to the clouds. All of the rays are travelling in the same direction – from the sun to the earth. When the clouds disperse, the rays combine, one into another, and we see a single ray, coming from the sun and into our eyes. What we have described above is not a fantasy. The analogy translates directly into accepted quantum theory. Every ray in the quantum universe—every event, every thought, and every memory—is a component of a single ray, which is the wavefunction of the universe. It is our perception that makes them seem separate. The clouds are the barriers that stand between the conscious mind and its unconscious source. Conscious minds, like rays through the clouds, are many. The unconscious reality is one.
Sigmund Freud never made the connection between the quantum reality and the unconscious mind, thanks to the silence of the physics community regarding the quantum reality. In 1927 the greatest physicists in the world convened in Copenhagen. After much discussion, they decided to suppress the idea of quantum reality, concluding that quantum theory was simply a theory of measurement that gave no insight into any underlying reality.
Freud did, however, recognize that the self, soul, or psyche was unconscious in nature, and that the unconscious process was not “localized” at any particular place or time. It is secondary process, secondary elaboration, which leads us to our conscious perception of space and time. Considering the classical worldview of Freud’s time, his ideas were remarkably quantum. Carl Jung, Freud’s student, took it even a step further by describing the unconscious mind as collective. Now we take it still a step further, standing on the shoulders of Freud and Jung, by describing the universal nature of the unconscious mind. We would be remiss if we didn’t point out, at this time, that we are not the first to describe the universal unconscious. Gustav Fechner described it with remarkable clarity in the 1860’s. He used an analogy, which is as valid today as it was then. The analogy was to a sine wave, with the x-axis dividing it into peaks and troughs. Each peak is cut-off , and in this way separated from all of the other peaks. However, beneath the x-axis, beneath the line that cuts off all of the peaks, all of the peaks are joined together. The line is the barrier that separates consciousness and the unconscious mind, which he called the “world soul.” Minds are divided in consciousness, but not in the unconscious mind. This is very much like our analogy to the rays piercing the clouds. In our dreaming minds, the line that cuts off the tops of the peaks of the sine wave is lowered below the bottoms of the troughs, and the separation between people is lost. This is responsible for the phenomenon that Freud called condensation. Condensation is the phenomenon in dreams of “condensing” a number of people into a single person. In dreams, sometimes a person will suddenly change to another person. At other times a person will take on characteristics of other people, including the dreamer. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud analyses one of his own dreams. The dream is about a patient, who he called Irma. He described her as “a young lady who was on very friendly terms with me and my family.” He had some reservation regarding his role as a psychotherapist treating a close friend, and was particularly troubled by the expectations that her family might have regarding successful treatment. In the summer of 1895, after the end of what Freud described as a partially successful treatment, Freud dreamed that he met Irma at a party: “A large hall – numerous guests, who we were receiving. – Among them was Irma. I at once took her to the side, as though to answer her letter and to reproach her for not having accepted my ‘solution’ yet. She replied: ‘If you only knew what pains I’ve got now in my throat and stomach and abdomen – it’s choking me – I was alarmed and looked at her. She looked pale and puffy… I took her to the window and looked down her throat, and she showed signs of recalcitrance, like a women with artificial dentures. I thought to myself that there was really no need for her to do that. – She then opened her mouth properly and on the right I found a big white patch; at another place I saw extensive whitish grey scabs upon some remarkable curly structures which were evidently modeled on the turbinal bones of the nose…” Freud is at first defensive about his failure to completely cure Irma of her nervous malady. Then he notices that Irma looks pale and puffy. This, as he interprets the dream, leads him to begin to suspect that he is substituting someone else for her, someone who, although in good health, looked pale and puffy. Irma, he writes, “always had a rosy complexion.”
His examination of Irma’s oral cavity reminds him of an examination he made of a governess, who at first glance had “seemed a picture of youthful beauty, but when it came to opening her mouth, she had taken measures to conceal her plates.” As Irma stood by the window, Freud writes, she reminded him of Irma’s “intimate women friend.” Freud had visited this friend one evening, finding her by the window “in the situation reproduced in the dream.” After noting that he had exchanged two other women for Irma, Freud goes on to write, “The scabs on the turbinal bones recalled a worry about my own state of health. I was making frequent use of cocaine at that time to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings, and I had heard a few days earlier that one of my women patients who had followed my example had developed an extensive necrosis [tissue death] of the nasal mucous membrane. I had been the first to recommend the use of cocaine, in 1885, and this recommendation had brought serious reproaches down to me.” Here Freud is substituting another female patient for Irma. Irma is a condensation of at least four women, who were associated in his unconscious mind. Our minds seem to play tricks on us in dreams, and in this, the first of Freud’s published dream interpretations, Freud is trying to figure out why this happens. He realizes that, in his dream, his mind has fused four women from his waking life. The phenomenon is described from the conscious perspective. Four separate women in consciousness are one woman in the unconscious reality. What Freud has done here, in this the first of his published dream interpretations, is to take a sample of the wavefunction of the unconscious. In this case, he is seeing four aspects of the female, potential females, if you will, that exist together in the unconscious, but who are seen separately in the conscious elaboration of the dream. The unconscious content of multiple simultaneous realities is also one of multiple simultaneous identities. The female in Freud’s dream is the female aspect of Freud himself. We get some hint that this may be the case when, upon looking into the woman’s mouth, he sees the scabs that recall a worry about his own health. Carl Jung, Freud’s student, would later describe the constellation of the feminine in the unconscious psyche as the anima. The male and female principles, which Jung called the animus and the anima, arise at a deep level of the unconscious. The single ray, the “I,” that is the source of these two separate rays is undifferentiated with respect to gender. The anima is the source of some of the earliest symbolic expression of the unconscious in human prehistory, in the form various female figures that are referred to as the Earth Mother. One’s own mother is invariably the central figure in the personal unconscious construct of the female. In the same way that the mother is always part of the unconscious female, the infant and the child are always part of the man. We see a bit of this in Freud’s preoccupation with the oral cavity, which is characteristic of the infant. The oral cavity, in Freud’s dream, is general, is undifferentiated with respect to the women and himself. That is to say, in the unconscious, Freud’s mouth, Irma’s mouth, and the governess’ mouth are one mouth. The separate mouths in the preconscious of Freud’s elaborated dream are objects of consciousness, but are, together, a single subject of the unconscious. Here we see another important principle of the unconscious process. All elements of the unconscious are subjects. In other words, the unconscious is totally subjective. Every conscious object is derived from an unconscious subject. The quantum field is also totally subjective, since it is one and the same as the unconscious. In the universal field of the quantum unconscious, every concept is a ray which can be described as the sum of all the individual or particular rays of subjects that the concept represents. We represent each of these rays with a word. The individual thing has both its beginning and its end in the ray that is the sum of all subjects that can be abstracted into the same generality. This seems like a difficult concept but is really quite a simple one when expressed in analogous terms. This is because the “logic” of the unconscious is analogous. All mouths are analogous. The fact that one mouth precedes another in time, or has a different locality in time, does not enter into the equation, since the point that is the origin for the ray or word “mouth” has no distinct or separate location in space and time. What we are saying here is a bit subtle. We are not saying that the word is the thing. If we were to say this, we would be confusing a subject, the word, ray, or concept, with an object, the thing – mouth. What we are saying is that what is objective, what we view as reality, is consciousness itself. Consciousness is always derived from unconsciousness. The particular or individual mouth is an object of the conscious mind, and, as such, it has an unconscious origin. Does this mean that my mouth is the creation of your mind? No it does not. Rather, mouths are a single subject in the unconscious, out of which the conscious object arises. The object exists only in consciousness. It is comprised of experience, not substance. Nothing, in actuality, substantiates from the field. Reality is experience, which can be either unconscious or conscious. Movement into consciousness does not imply any substantial change. On this point, mainstream physics goes awry, creating two incompatible realities, the quantum and the classical, one of knowledge and the other of substance.

Wish Fulfillment
Freud viewed all dreams as wish-fulfillments. In The Interpretation of Dreams, he argued that the manifest content of a dream may seem to be unpleasant, but this is just the conscious reaction to the latent content of the dream, which always fulfils a wish. The latent content exists in the unconscious, and is altered when the dream comes into consciousness. In dreams, the gate of the unconscious is opened, but it is still guarded by the ego, by our view of our selves. The ego, which guards the gate, in effect disguises the content of the dream to protect the conscious mind from unconscious thoughts and feelings that are unacceptable to the conscious mind. Freud called this process dream distortion. The unconscious content of a dream exists as potential in the quantum field. As Freud said, it is always latent. In the quantum unconscious, everything is a whole. In the depths of the unconscious, everything is “I”. It is in the movement toward consciousness, in the borderland of the preconscious, that the I separates into ego and world, which the conscious mind identifies as “I” and “not I.” This separation, this cleaving of the I, changes the unconscious content of every thought and feeling that becomes conscious. The ego, the conscious I, always arises with its complement. It cannot arise alone. It can only arise together with a world. In the preconscious borderland that we experience in dreams, the distinction between ego and world is not quite complete. Objects of the world, including other people, are, to some extent, still part of the I. The dream distortion disguises this fusion of ego and world in order to preserve the integrity of the ego. The contents of the dream are not yet fully differentiated. We view the ego as the actor, and the world as a stage. In the unconscious, both actor and stage are one. In this respect, dreams are always ambivalent, at once expressing both the union and separation of ego and world.
This takes us, in The Interpretation of Dreams, to Freud’s next dream: “My friend R. was my uncle. – I had a great feeling of affection for him. I saw before me his face, somewhat changed. It was as though it had been drawn out lengthways. A yellow beard that surrounded it stood out especially clearly.” Freud had this dream in 1897. R, his friend, had visited him the night before the dream. Freud and R. were competitors for an appointment to a professorship at the University of Vienna. Both men were Jewish, and there was open discrimination against Jews in Vienna at that time. What is first apparent in Freud’s dream was that he has fused R with his uncle. Freud’s uncle Josef had become involved in illegal financial transactions, and had been imprisoned as a result. At the time, Freud’s father told him that his uncle was not a bad man, just a simpleton. R looked like Josef in Freud’s dream.
The message of the dream, according to Freud, is that R is a simpleton, like Josef. R. is the same as Freud, a Jewish man seeking a professorship and being subject to discrimination. Yet R. is also different from Freud, he is a simpleton. The wish is for Freud to get the professorship, and not to be subject to discrimination.
Freud goes on to note that he had never had such affection for his uncle as he had in the dream, and relates this as a dream distortion. He states that this affection is meant to disguise some malevolence on his part towards R, who he thinks is a simpleton. Conscious affection thus arises with its unconscious complement, malevolence. Freud’s principle of the substitution of opposites here is just one more example of the principle of complementarity.

The unconscious is ambivalent. The opposites or complements are not substituted for one another in order to create a disguise an unconscious duality. The duality of opposites is created in the dependent coarising of opposing principles. What Freud does not realize, in his interpretation, is that, at the latent level of the unconscious, he is both R. and Josef. It is natural that he should have sympathy for the man in his dream. Sympathy and its complement, antipathy, are the same in the unconscious world, where every feeling is united with its complement. The separation of self and other, or ego and world, is incomplete in the preconscious world of the dream. Freud’s attitude towards his R/Josef/I is one of ambivalence. He has affection for the man, yet he also thinks the man is a simpleton. In consciousness, the simpleton is clearly “not I.” Freud does not believe that he is a simpleton. His affection is not a lie created by the ego to protect itself from its bad feelings toward R. It is, rather, his own feeling for himself. What he is protecting himself against, in his interpretation, is his own self-loathing, the inevitable unconscious complement of his self-esteem. Who am I to be reinterpreting Freud’s dreams? In my consciousness, I have a certain identification with Freud, as well as a distinction from him. But in the unconscious I am Freud. There is no separation of persons in the unconscious. The paradox of the quantum and classical fields is the paradox of mind. I know who I am, and the more I know who I am, the less I know who I am. Knowing and not knowing, or knowing and unknowing, are complements. The more conscious we become, the more unconscious we become.
Every dream is the fulfillment of a wish, and the wish is always the same – the becoming of the I. But the conscious I, the ego, is not the same as the unconscious I, the self. In becoming my current I, Dr. Germine, I had to leave behind my Mr. Germine, just as Freud had to leave behind his own Dr. R. Dr. Freud dreamed his dream one hundred years before mine. In analyzing his dream, I was really analyzing my own. For every degree of separation that we make for the conscious I, the ego, we make a degree of separation from the unconscious I, the self. This is the principle of complementarity, the Uncertainty Principle. The universe of experience, the mind, operates by the same principle as the physical universe. Are the two really any different?

Light Breaks
Poems are like dreams. They express an unconscious process. My favorite poem, about twenty years ago, was “Light Breaks” by Dylan Thomas. I could go back to the original, but for our purposes my recollection of this fragment of the poem is most useful: “Light breaks, where no sun shines… Where no sea is, the waters of the heart swell in their tide.” The light that breaks are the rays of that universal, invisible sun which is the origin of all consciousness. The “where” of the poem is the unconscious where. This “where” gives rise to its complements, everywhere and nowhere, which are united in the unconscious. This “where” also arises into consciousness as the “there,” which is the unconscious complement of the conscious “here.” The poem expresses the reality on the borderland of consciousness, where “there” is everywhere and nowhere. The phrase “no sun shines” has many meanings. Its conscious meaning is literal, there is no physical sun in the “where” of the poem. Unconsciously “no sun” is united with “sun.” So, this sun is the sun of the unconscious, which is both “sun” and “no sun.”
Next we come upon the phrase “no sea.” In that “where,” which is the “here” of the unconscious, and the “there” of consciousness, there is “no sea.” Again, there is no physical sea. “Sea” and “no sea” are united. This is the sea of the unconscious, which is both “sea” and “no sea.” In that no sea, there are “waters.” Water is the universal archetype of the unconscious. It is the “word” that expresses the unconscious. “Waters” is the “many waters” of David and Solomon. The “many waters” of individual consciousness is complementary to the “one water” of the unconscious, which is the universal sea, the “field.” The “many waters” are also the “many nows” that arise along with their complement in the unconscious, the one, eternal now. The unconscious meaning of water signifies its actual properties. Water is still a mysterious substance. We know that water is polar, e.g., that the water molecule has positive and negative electromagnetic poles. The opposite poles of water molecules attract one another, making water very “sticky.” There is also a bonding between water molecules, from the hydrogen of one to the oxygen of the other. This is called hydrogen bonding. Atomic orbitals and molecular bonds are delocalized. That is to say, the electrons in these bonds and orbitals are really clouds of potential electrons that, individually and collectively, are expressed as the quantum wavefunction of the electromagnetic field. In quantum field theory, the electromagnetic field is spaceless and timeless, and is a superposition of all possible states of the electron or electrons. The electromagnetic field is coupled, outside of space and time, to an interaction field, which is peculiar to the dynamical system, giving rise to space/time as an internal or subjective relation, a relation between the coupled fields within the system. According to the laws of science, as we understand them, water shouldn’t exist, at least in its current form. The energy of water is currently inexplicable. It holds far more heat than it should, and it has a far greater surface tension than it should. Where is this energy? There is only one place that is large enough to hold the energy of water. It is the same place that holds the energy of the Unified Field. It is the quantum vacuum. It is here that the energy of creation is hidden. The electrons of the water molecule are delocalized, that is to say, they are immersed in the quantum vacuum, where there is neither space nor time. The oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams, the clouds and rain, and the water of all living things, are all one vast sea of electrons. These electrons cannot exist in the sense that we understand reality. This is the vast sea of the planetary unconscious. Consciousness arises out of this sea of electrons, out of the order on the surface of water. On the surface of water there is a partial localization, a structure that clusters of water molecules assume. The energy that is necessary to create this structure, this order, arises from the vacuum. It is the delocalization energy of water. The entire central nervous system (CNS) is immersed in a bag of water, surrounded by the meninges. All of the cells, synapses, receptors, and ion channels of the brain and spinal cord lie on one, continuous surface of water. The continuous surface of water is a single cloud of delocalized electrons. This dynamical system of electrons is ordered at every point of contact with the substance of the CNS. The quantum field of delocalized electrons is coupled to an interaction field, which performs the function of localization and genesis of time and experience. Information arises out of uncertainty and into consciousness out of the quantum unconscious. Information is a kind of unconscious energy that has an observable, negative counterpart called negentropy. Individual consciousness arises in the CNS as information by partial localization of the single, continuous, delocalized electron field of a continuous surface of water. As such, individual consciousness is limited to the central nervous system, since it is limited to a single, dynamical system of delocalized electrons. Consciousness arising out of the quantum field in the CNS has a limited purview of the field, and so appears separate and individual. The universal nature of consciousness is thus concealed at the local level of organization of individual consciousness.

Into the Deep
The coupling of the electromagnetic field of the dynamical system to the interaction field, which is essentially the psyche, gives rise to space and time or space/time. The electromagnetic field is derivative of the universal field or Unified Field, and it is this derivation that determines which “universe” of space/time arises out of the dynamical system. The universal field, existing beyond space/time, is everywhere and nowhere. It is in our possible universes, as well as in all possible universes. Our possible universes are constrained by our laws of physics, which are but one of a virtually unlimited number of possible sets of laws that can arise out of the universal field through the process of symmetry breaking. The Unified Field has perfect symmetry, or supersymmetry. This means that there are no distinctions between the four fundamental forces: the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces (the electroweak force), the strong nuclear force, and gravitational force. The Universal Field is only united at a tremendous energy, in a state that is incompatible with space/time. Before the dawn of our time, and before the dawn of every moment, there is no space/time. As far as we know, spontaneous symmetry breaking in our universe always produces the same physical laws as it has done since the beginning of our time. There is a mathematical space, or hyperspace, that represents the “quantum vacuum.” This hyperspace has many mathematical dimensions that are called Higgs Fields. In this space, there is a ring-shaped, circular energy valley. The bottom or the energy valley is at the same energy level all around. All potential universes settle into a point in the bottom of this energy valley at the dawn of their time, through the process of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or “creation.” In any one universe each moment, in each dynamical system, is a reiteration of the “creation” of that universe, always settling into the same point, with the same physical laws. The most essential constant that arises out of spontaneous symmetry breaking is the speed of light, c. The speed of light is the basis for the relations of space/time and energy/matter that characterize a particular universe. Light is the most fundamental reality that arises in “creation.” The story of our universe is vastly more unlikely than the most unlikely story imaginable. First of all, the energy of perfect symmetry had to arise out of the “quantum vacuum.” This energy had to arise within the limits of the conservation or energy, which are set according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Energy must always be conserved within the boundary of uncertainty. The vast energy of the Unified Field could never arise objectively out of the zero-energy field of the vacuum, since such an energy could not persist for the minimum duration dictated by the Uncertainty Principle. The probability of such an event is zero – it is impossible. The universe can only be a possibility, according to the laws of physics, that is to say, it can never truly emerge from the field, although it can exist as a possibility within the field. The spontaneous symmetry breaking that occurs in the supercooling of the initial energy state of the Unified Field must settle into precisely the right point in a ring-shaped energy valley of an infinite number of possible universes. The likelihood of our universe falling into such a configuration is infinitely small, since infinity divided by one is infinity. Indeed, the probability of our universe existing objectively is infinity divided by zero, which is the probability of the initial energy state. Our universe is infinitely impossible. The physical universe, by itself, cannot exist. The idea of this incredible energy, arising out of nothing, violates the twin principles of energy: the conservation of energy, and the Uncertainty Principle. We need to find a deeper principle, in which our universe is possible. As energy and time are united in the Unified Field, they are, in that field, the same. This we will call energy/time. The conservation of energy is related to time through Einstein’s equation, where c is the speed of light: E = mc2. Energy and time are one and the same in the field, and they are conserved according to Einstein’s equation. Einstein’s equation therefore leads us to the new principle of conservation of energy and time. In order for energy/time to be conserved, time must be subjective. The universe cannot exist in an objective time. In a subjective sense, the universe never arose out of the field – it is “still” in the field. It is still part of the wavefunction of all possible universes. Time is not external. It is not something we observe passing in the universe. It is created by the dynamical system itself, through the coupling of the fields, at every moment. Time exists “objectively” only in our consciousness. In the unconscious, quantum universe, there is only now. Einstein showed that time is relative to the speed of light, c. Light travels outward from a center. We call this center the subject. For the subject observing the outward movement of light, time stands still in all directions. Since the light is moving away at the speed of light, the light is standing still in time with respect to the observer. In other words, time is a subjective or internal relation between the observer and the light. For the subject, it is always now. In consciousness, this relation seems external, and that is why time appears to move forward. In the subjective view of time, the unconscious subject or “I” is timeless, since subjective time at any point in the universe encompasses all of what we call objective or cosmic time. Time arises in consciousness over a duration that is quantum in nature. In other words, time arises from the field. It is not part of the field. Within the unconscious, timeless duration, causality is reciprocal. That is to say, the duration is actualized as a whole, and causality goes both ways. The principles of reciprocal causality are as follows: 1) the cause gives rise to the effect: the effect gives rise to the cause, 2) the parts give rise to the whole: the whole gives rise to the parts, 3) the past causes the future: the future causes the past, and 4) matter gives rise to mind: mind gives rise to matter. In the reciprocal view of causality, the universal consciousness is both the cause and the effect of the universe. The two can only exist together. The universe can only exist as the subject of universal consciousness.
Since the universe is a subjective relation, the Higgs Fields are interactive functions that find their optimum values by feedback with universal consciousness. The Higgs Fields are set exactly where they need to be to give rise to our universe. This changes the probability of our universe arising from zero divided by infinity to one. Indeed, as Einstein said, God does not play dice. I will end here by describing a wonderful, recurrent dream. I dream that I meet Albert Einstein. He is a young man, with wild, brown hair. He seems odd, and a bit comical, perhaps even playful. It is as if he has come to tell me something. He never tells me anything, at least that I can recall.

Notes
1. This relation was first made explicit by Alfred North Whitehead in his books Science and the Modern World (1925) and Process and Reality (1929). Whitehead called the codependent origination of things and time process. Jason Brown was the first to describe process as a fundamental principle of mind in his books, Self and Process (1991) and Time, Will, and Mental Process (1996).
2. This is a bit of a simplification. In the field, as it is represented in quantum mechanics, all of space and time are enfolded into a single point, which is the origin of the ray. In quantum process, space and time are unfolded from the field as well as being enfolded in the field. David Bohm described this process in Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980) and, with Basil Hiley, in The Undivided Universe (1996). Bohm described the field as the quantum potential field or implicate order. He described the unfolded reality of space and time as the explicate order. In quantum field theory (as opposed to quantum mechanics) space and time coarise with the dynamical system through the coupling of the electromagnetic field and the interaction field.
3. We must recall here that the field is timeless, so that, even though the instantaneous effect that a change in the brain state has on the universe is small, this influence becomes quite substantial with the passage of time. There are some other, more technical considerations that necessitate our inclusion of the universe in the change in state of the brain, involving the quantum entanglement of the brain and the universe.
4. All references to The Interpretation of Dreams are from The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, translated from the original 1900 German edition under the general editorship of James Strachey in collaboration with Anna Freud, assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson. Hogarth Press, London, 1953.
Mark Germine
P.O. Box 7176
Loma Linda, CA 92354
Mgerm97572@aol.com
Quantum Psychodynamics of Dreams
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1998/QuantumDreams.html

Posted in Mind, Personal Improvement, Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

God – Quantum Physics – Human Mind – String Theory

Posted by hotcrowd on August 13, 2010

Introduction
Does God really act in the world? I am inclined to think that God does act in the world, but only occasionally. If the occasion justifies God’s action to carry out his will, he is fully capable to do so and acts accordingly, but the occasions may be few and far between at times or more concentrated at other times. It is not the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics that controls when God acts but the situations in the lives of people.
It seems to be people and their actions that may determine whether God acts or not. Hence, we should focus on people from the beginning of their creation by God, and such a focus brings up at the outset of how God created man. There are the creationists that argue vehemently against the evolutionists and vice versa. I think there is a solution in this debate that could possibly satisfy both factions. Archeological findings scientifically analyzed suggest rather strong support for the evolutionary side of the argument, and I favor these findings. On the other hand, I would argue that the human being was probably created suddenly. How do I hold both positions?
I hold this position based upon the assumption that there are more worlds than our world and universe of three physical dimensions. The worlds that I speak of are the worlds of higher dimensions. Almost one hundred years ago, Albert Einstein introduced the physics profession to the concept of time as the fourth dimension beyond our three-dimensional world in his theories of Relativity. Since then, the fourth dimension has been integrated into our three-dimensional world by thinking of the physical concept of time as being an extension into the fourth dimension of the three-dimensional space of the world we know. The fourth dimension gradually took on the name of space-time and the hyphen was later eliminated and physicists now speak of the spacetime continuum.
My interest in physics began to develop in my high school days during the 1920’s. Reading popular accounts of the developments in physics since then, set my mind to thinking in the 1950’s that if the fourth dimension existed, which we cannot see or go into, there might be yet higher dimensions beyond the fourth. We live in time but we cannot go back to yesterday; we are locked into the current moment of time. Has yesterday been destroyed? We can remember what we did yesterday, but how can we remember yesterday if we cannot go back to it? I try to explain this phenomena in my paper, String Theory and the Human Mind. The mind may function in the fifth dimension, transcendent to our brain in the third dimension when we lived through yesterday and which has now passed into the fourth dimension of the spacetime continuum.
Animals have minds just as human beings have. They may not be as well developed as the human mind, and there might be a reason for that. Human beings also have a spirit and the spirit may be the reason for the human mind to have developed to a greater extent than the minds of animals.
Let us back up in time to the creation of man and even prior to his creation. In studying the whole Biblical account of man’s history, the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, the likelihood seems to be that angels were probably created even before man, but in a similar manner to the creation of man. They might have developed through the evolutionary process as all living matter and human beings developed. In this long evolutionary process, God might have eventually chosen an animal that closely resembled his lower dimensions [See my paper God is One.]. This could have been a Neanderthal or Cro-Magnum type of being to which God added a spirit to produce an angel or angels. God may not have given them the freedom to break away from God as in the freedom that God gave to man in his creation. This could be the chief difference between angels and human beings, such as us. I recognize that the Bible speaks of some fallen angels such as Satan, but these might have broken away in spite of their not having been given that permission.
When human beings were created by God, possibly by adding a human spirit in the sixth dimension to the five-dimensional animal which became man, God might have chosen to give to man the freedom to break away from him which freedom he did not give to angels. It could have been God’s thought that if he created man as he had created angels by adding a spirit to a well-developed animal, and man chose of his own free will to seek God, that would be even better than angels who did not have that option. The experiment, however, backfired in the face of God. Man chose to be himself without any need for God. This could have occurred only a few thousand years before Jesus Christ, which could satisfy the creationist, but the long evolutionary development of the animal-man before the adding of a human spirit could probably satisfy the evolutionist.
To support the relatively short-term of the creationist in the historical life of man, I refer you to a book by Professor Julian Jaynes of the Psychology Department of Princeton University. The summary of the book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, is as follows:
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3000 years ago and is still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion — and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer, it is “a humbling text, the kind that reminds most of us who make our livings through thinking, how much thinking there is left to do.” [i]
The history of man has been a breaking away from God rather than adhering to him as he had hoped. Such breaking away became so great that God began again with the flood and Noah. Again the breakaway occurred and God appeared ready to narrow the field and concentrate on one chosen nation. That nation, however, broke away time and again and God allowed a large part to be captured and assimilated into Assyria. God allowed the remaining part to be captured by Babylonia and only a remnant returned after about 70 years to Jerusalem. Even the remnant continued to break away and finally God decided to focus upon each individual person and the Incarnation and Crucifixion ensued. I have expanded upon this brief historical account of God’s dealing with his created humanity in other papers on this website and will not go into more detail here, but this gives something of the background of God’s activity in the world.
Quantum mechanics has been used by many physicists/theologians to explain God’s activity in the world of man, but these attempts seem rather vague and possibly futile. On the other hand, I have found the concept of the higher physical dimensions greater than the three dimensions of our currently known world to have been of value which I will outline later in this paper.
Back to Top
Objections in the use of quantum mechanics to understand God’s activity.
Much has been written in attempts to relate God’s activity in the world of people using the concepts of quantum mechanics in the broad field of physics. These writings appear to be rather abstract and do not seem to achieve their ultimate purpose. In this respect, the use of quantum mechanics alone seems to be a “dead-end–street.” Professor Nicholas Saunders of Cambridge University concludes his paper in the journal Zygon, Does God Cheat at Dice? Divine Action and Quantum Possibilities saying, “…it thus seems reasonable to conclude that a theology of divine action that is linked to quantum processes is theologically and scientifically untenable.” I agree fully with Professor Saunders. Professor Saunders says in part in the abstract to this paper:
The recent debates concerning divine action in the content of quantum mechanics are examined with particular reference to the work of William Pollard, Robert J. Russell, Thomas Tracy, Nancy Murphy, and Keith Ward… The conclusion reached is that quantum mechanics is not easily reconciled with the doctrine of divine action. [ii]
In the same issue of Zygon Professor Peter E. Hodgson, Head of the Nuclear Physics Theoretical Group of the Nuclear Physics Laboratory, University of Oxford, and Emeritus Fellow of Corpus Christi College, has a paper entitled, God’s Action in the World:The Relevance of Quantum Mechanics. In the abstract of this paper, Professor Hodgson says in part:
It has been suggested that God can act on the world by operating within the limits set by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle without violating the laws of nature… However, according to the statistical interpretation of the quantum mechanical wavefunction represents the average behavior of an ensemble of similar systems and not that of a single system… This statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is supported by reference to actual measurements, resolves the quantum paradoxes, and stimulates further research. If this interpretation is accepted, quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the question of God’s action in the world. [iii]
Also in the same issue of Zygon is another paper by Professor Carl S. Helrich, Professor of Physics and Chair of the Department of Physics, Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana, entitled Quantum Physics and Understanding God. Concluding this paper, Professor Helrich says:
I am suggesting that to look for God’s interaction with us in the quantum indeterminacy is to study the problem at the wrong level. I have considered here two levels above that, neither of which is well understood, and I have tried to point out that for scientific reasons we should consider the problems at these levels. I do believe that the final level is the important one.
…I am arguing that attempts to search for what has been called the “causal joint” between God and us in quantum indeterminacy is misplaced for scientific reasons… I have suggested, however, that the actual problem is at yet a higher level, at which we become the system being studied and at the same instant are the measuring instrument. This introduces an entirely new set of problems that are not encountered in discussions of quantum indeterminacy. [iv]
Another paper, also in the same issue of Zygon, by Jeffrey Koperski, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan entitled, God, Chaos, and The Quantum Dice, says in the abstract:
A recent noninterventionist account of divine agency has been proposed that marries the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics to the instability of chaos theory. On this account, God is able to bring about observable effects in the macroscopic world by determining the outcome of quantum events. When this determination occurs in the presence of chaos, the ability to influence large systems is multiplied. This paper argues that, although the proposal is highly intuitive, current research in dynamics shows that it is far less plausible than previously thought. Chaos coupled to quantum mechanics proves to be a shaky foundation for models of divine agency. [v]
Finally, in the same issue of Zygon there is a paper by Alfred Kracher, Assistant Scientist and Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University entitled, Stories and Theories: A Scientific Challenge to Theology. The abstract to this paper says in part:
Stories about the divine are meant to help our imagination cope with what is ultimately not fully imaginable. In the process we make use of metaphors that rely on quantitative relationships to express the qualitative difference between the reality accessible to us and the transcendent reality of God… A rethinking of many traditional concepts, such as immanence and transcendence, seems to be indicated. [vi]
Back to Top
String theory could be a useful extension of quantum mechanics.
I would like to suggest to physicists/theologians to move on to the ensuing step in physics, namely, string theory. This is not a completely separate theory from that of quantum mechanics which has been developed by physicists since the 1920s following the work of Schroedinger and Heisenberg. String theory had its inception in the late 1960s or early 1970s by John Schwarz of the California Institute of Technology. It gained some momentum among a few physicists after he and Michael Green presented a paper on this extension of quantum mechanics, string theory, in 1984. At that time the ball was picked up by Edward Witten, then of Princeton University and now a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He has been one of the chief spokesmen for string theory since then.
String theory is not an entirely separate concept from quantum mechanics, but it does appear to go beyond quantum processes in its ability to deal with quantum gravity which quantum mechanics apparently cannot do. A brief article in an early August 2000 issue of Time magazine told of an Associate Professor of Physics at Harvard University who was able to form a mathematics bridge between quantum mechanics and string theory: Juan Maldacena. I quote several paragraphs from this article:
Juan Maldacena with a set of mathematical equations is like a magician with a wand. He can take rows of arcane symbols that describe the gravitational weirdness of a black hole and, with a flourish, pull from them equations that look suspiciously like those that govern the will-o’-the-wisp interactions of subatomic particles. What’s more, the associate professor of physics at Harvard University can perform the same trick in reverse, effectively concealing the rabbit back inside the hat.
In this playful way, the 31-year-old native of Buenos Aires has been able to suggest a way to knit together two theories previously thought to be incompatible: quantum mechanics, which deals with the universe at its smallest scales; and Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which deals with the very largest. Even as an undergraduate at Argentina’s Instituto Balseilro, Maldacena had been intrigued by the idea that a bridge spanning the two might be constructed using string theory — so called because it assumes the fundamental constituents of matter are not pointlike particles but tiny, vibrating loops of string.
When Maldacena transformed his string-theory black hole into something resembling conventional particle physics, his colleagues reacted first with disbelief, then with delight, dancing and singing (in a spoof of the Macarena), “Ehhhh, Maldacena! [vii]
I have written briefly as a layman and not a physicist on string theory in other fairly recent papers and I will not repeat myself again in this paper on this subject. I refer you, however, to my papers in this website entitled String Theory and the Human Mind (September 1999) and God is One (March 2000).
That string theory is gradually becoming more acceptable among physicists is an article in the August 2000 issue of Scientific American. This article was written by three physicists who were together at Stanford University in 1998: Nima Arkani-Hamed, an assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, Savas Dimopoulos, a professor of physics at Stanford University, and Howard Georgi (“Gia” Dvali), a professor of physics at Harvard University. I quote a few excerpts from this article as follows:
The theory solves the hierarchy problem by making gravity a strong force near TeV energies, precisely the energy scale to be probed using upcoming particle accelerators. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider due to begin around 2005, should therefore uncover the nature of quantum gravity! [This Large Hadron Collider is located at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Nicholas Saunders, mentioned above worked for a time at CERN conducting research toward the development of this collider.]
A completely different type of experiment could also substantiate the theory, perhaps much sooner than the particle colliders. Recall that for two extra dimensions to solve the hierarchy problem, they must be as large as a millimeter. [See the graph in my above mentioned papers and reference to the string theory model of Horva and Witten.] Measurements of gravity would then detect a change from Newton’s inverse square law to an inverse fourth power law at distances near a millimeter. Extensions of the basic theoretical framework lead to a whole host of other possible deviations from Newtonian gravity, the most interesting of which is repulsive forces more than a million times stronger than gravity occurring between masses separated by less than a millimeter. Tabletop experiments using exquisitely built detectors are now under way, testing Newton’s law from the centimeter range down to tens of microns.
Quantum gravity and string theory would become testable science. Whatever happens, experiment will point the way to answering a 300-year-old question, and by 2010 we will have made decisive progress toward understanding why gravity is so weak. And we may find that we live in a strange Flatland, a membrane universe where quantum gravity is just around the corner. [viii]
In my papers String Theory and the Human Mind and God is One, I have set forth the concept that a human being is more than three-dimensional creature. There are parts of us that we cannot see. We cannot see each others’ mind but we know certainly that humans do have minds, indeed, all animals have minds and the human being in this respect is similar to other animals. You might respond, “You cannot see my mind because my brain is in my skull and you cannot see within my head.” That is, what you are saying is that my mind, and your mind, is the brain or is in the brain. This is the belief of most neuroscientists. They are looking desperately for the functioning of the mind within the brain, particularly how the mind remembers past events or even abstract concepts. Professor Daniel Schacter, chair of the Psychology Department of Harvard University wrote a book in 1996 entitled Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past [ix] but he has not yet actually found the mind or the reason for memory even though he and neuroscientists can identify certain locations in the brain that become active when certain thoughts prevail in the mind. These locations, however, as I understand, are scattered throughout the brain suggesting that the whole brain is the mind. On the other hand, it appears more reasonable to me that the mind is transcendent to the brain and causes various sections of the brain to become active in thinking various types of thoughts. I have discussed this type of transcendency in more detail in my paper String Theory and the Human Mind.
Back to Top
God’s Action in the World in the concept of Higher Dimensions.
I do not attempt to say that the concept that God acts in the higher dimensions can be proved scientifically, at least not yet, but I am encouraged by the article in Scientific American, mentioned above, by three physicists in three prominent universities doing research in the field of physics. On the other hand, the Biblical account of God’s action in the world among human beings seems so clearly to call upon the concept of the higher dimensions to “explain” in a reasonable manner much of the mystery of miracles and God’s influence on how people act toward one another. This concept is not scientifically provable as yet, but if theologians would use their reasoning ability to think through the concept of theology expressed in higher dimensions, theology might be five or ten years ahead of science in its broadening acceptance of the reality of higher dimensions. But first, recall the story of Flatland.
Back to Top
The Story of Flatland.
I urge you to become acquainted with the relatively short book by Edwin Abbott, Flatland, re-published by Dover Publications, New York. Edwin Abbott (1838-1926) was a graduate of Cambridge University in the fields of mathematics and theology. He became a headmaster of a boys school in London, a clergyman and a Shakespearean scholar. He wrote this book over one hundred years ago, before the days of Einstein’s Relativity Theories and the ensuing theories of quantum mechanics in the field of physics. It describes the people of a two-dimensional civilization. They are geometrical figures, triangles, squares, polygons and circles.
The women are merely straight lines of only one dimension but they are very sharp at either end and can penetrate any man even to the possibility of killing him. The soldiers and lowest working class of men are isosceles triangles with small bases.. As they become more skillful their bases widen. The middle class men are equilateral triangles. The professional men and gentlemen in management positions are squares. The nobility begin with hexagons and the higher ranks are polygons with increasing numbers of sides. When the number of sides become very large they become circles which is the priestly order.
The crux of the story centers around a person named A. Square. He is sitting in the living room of his two-dimensional pentagon-shaped house. The other members of his family have retired for the evening and A. Square is contemplating whether there is anything greater than his two-dimensional world. He cannot conceive of anything beyond his world but he is wondering if there is any possibility of a higher dimensional world.
Suddenly he is startled to see the person of a circle in the middle of his living room. All of the outside doors are locked and bolted. How did this priestly person get into his living room? This was a very peculiar priest. He could become larger and then smaller, shrinking to a mere point and disappearing completely only to reappear. A. Square was terrified but finally the circle spoke to him saying that he was really not a circle as Mr. Square sees him but that he was a three-dimensional person from the world of three dimensions. They began to engage in conversation. In this rather extended conversation, Mr. Sphere is trying to tell Mr. Square about the relative grandeur of the three-dimensional world. He is trying to tell Mr. Square of height above and below his two-dimensional world but Mr. Square could not comprehend such a dimension. Finally Mr. Sphere, in desperation, grabs the hand of Mr. Square by his hand and literally drags him into the third dimension of our three-dimensional world — a traumatic experience for Mr. Square but he soon begins to comprehend to some extent. He cannot see three-dimensional perspective as we do, however, because he has only one eye.
The conversation between Mr. Sphere and Mr. Square continues when they are in the three-dimensional world. The climax of the conversation and, indeed, the climax of the whole book is told in the closing pages of this conversation. I quote a few excerpts of this closing conversation from the book as follows:
The Sphere would willingly have continued his lessons indoctrinating me in the conformation of all regular Solids, Cylinders, Cones, Pyramids, Pentahedrons, Hexahedrons, Dodecahedrons, and Spheres: but I ventured to interrupt him. Not that I was wearied of knowledge. On the contrary, I thirsted for yet deeper and fuller draughts than he was offering to me.
“Pardon me,” said I. “O Thou Whom I must no longer address as the Perfection of all Beauty; but let me beg thee to vouchsafe thy servant a sight of thine interior.”
Sphere. My what?
I Thine interior: thy stomach, thy intestines.
Sphere. Whence this ill-timed impertinent request? And what mean you by saying that I am no longer the Perfection of all Beauty?
I My Lord, your own wisdom has taught me to aspire to One even more great, more beautiful, and more closely approximate to Perfection than yourself. As you yourself, superior to all Flatland forms, combine many Circles in One Supreme Existence, surpassing even the Solids of Spaceland. And even as we, who are now in Space, look down on Flatland and see the insides of all things, so of a certainty there is yet above us some higher, purer region, whither thou dost surely purpose to lead me — O Thou Whom I shall always call, everywhere and in all Dimensions, my Priest, Philosopher, and Friend — some yet more spacious Space, some more dimensionable Dimensionality, from the vantage-ground of which we shall look down together upon the insides of Solid things, and where thine own intestines, and those of kindred Spheres, will lie exposed to the view of the poor wandering exile from Flatland, to whom so much has already been vouchsafed.
Sphere. Pooh! Stuff! Enough of this trifling! The time is short, and much remains to be done before you are fit to proclaim the Gospel of Three Dimensions to your blind benighted countrymen in Flatland.
I. Nay, gracious Teacher, deny me not what I know is in thy power to perform. Grant me but one glimpse of thine interior, and I am satisfied for ever, remaining henceforth thy docile pupil, thy unemancipable slave, ready to receive thy teachings and to feed upon the words that fall from thy lips.
Sphere. Well, then, to content and silence you, let me say at once, I would shew you what you wish if I could; but I cannot. Would you have me turn my stomach inside out to oblige you?
I. But my Lord has shewn me the intestines of all my countrymen in the Land of Two Dimensions by taking me with him into the Land of Three. What therefore more easy than now to take his servant on a second journey into the blessed region of the Fourth Dimension, where I shall look down with him once more upon this land of Three Dimensions, and see the inside of every three-dimensional house, the secrets of the solid earth, the treasures of the mines in Spaceland, and the intestines of every solid living creature, even of the noble and adorable Spheres. [x]
It is the concept of the Land of Four Dimensions, spacetime, to which I direct your attention as we begin to consider God’s actions in the affairs of man. But why could not the Sphere show the Square his insides by going into the fourth dimension of spacetime? That is because, in the wisdom of God, at the time of creation, the whole of our three dimensional world, including us, are locked firmly into the current moment of time and we cannot escape into the fourth dimension of spacetime. As said in the Scientific American article mentioned above, “…we may find that we live in a strange Flatland, a membrane universe where quantum gravity is just around the corner.” We can not escape from our “membrane” world into the more spacious world of spacetime possibly until we die. Our living bodies the moment before our death may then be released at the moment of death into all of past moments, the fourth dimension of spacetime. That may be heaven, the dwelling place of God and all persons who have been saved.
Back to Top
Some of the Healing Miracles of the Gospel Accounts.
During his public ministry, Jesus, the Son of God, did many acts that appear to have been miracles. Is there any satisfactory explanation as to how these events occurred? I have not seen any such explanations. The only expression that I have seen is that they are miracles wrought by God, they are too complex for the human mind to grasp or even consider, and that we should not inquire further. My curiosity, however, is not satisfied with such a negation.
On the other hand, Professor Michio Kaku in his book Hyperspace, suggests that if higher dimensions are considered, the complex becomes more simplified. [xi] I agree with his point of view. The story of Flatland helps us to lift the curtain beyond our three dimensional world to see how the concept of higher dimensions sheds light upon miracle stories of physical healing performed by Jesus. Mr. Square wanted to see the internal organs of Mr. Sphere, but they would have had to move into the spacetime continuum to do that. Mr. Sphere, however, could not do that. He, and we also, in the wisdom of God at the time of creation, are locked into the current moment of the spacetime continuum, or the fourth dimension. As suggested in the article cited above from the August 2000 issue of the Scientific American, “And we may find that we live in a strange Flatland, a membrane universe where quantum gravity is just around the corner.” We could be locked into that “membrane universe” and may not be able to escape from it possibly until we are released from the current moment of time at the moment of death of each of us. God, however, in his lower dimensions, or the being of Melchizedek, does probably exist in the four dimensions of spacetime. [See my paper on this website God is One.] If, from the fourth dimension Melchizedek can see and even touch the inside of a person, he, being God, could correct a possibly kinked optic nerve to restore sight to a blind person or do whatever in necessary to correct any malfunction in a person.
This is a simple “explanation” of how some of the healing miracles occurred. Jesus, during his public ministry, was in close communion with God his Father inasmuch as Jesus’ human spirit was connected to the Holy Spirit of God the Father at the time of his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry. I use the term “welded;” his human spirit was welded very securely to the Holy Spirit to make them one and the same Spirit. Immediately thereafter, Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted for the purpose of testing the “weld” and it was found to be secure. That “weld” was not broken until the last minutes that Jesus hung on the cross in agony and humiliation to open God’s Holy Spirit to all of humanity for salvation.
Therefore, when Jesus was asked to heal a person he had access to Melchizedek, the lower dimensions of God the Father, through his human spirit and the Holy Spirit being one and the same through the weld that was made at the time of his baptism. Melchizedek, being in the fourth dimension had access to the inner physical body of the person to be healed. Melchizedek could then manipulate a nerve, an organ, a muscle, etc., to set the person’s physical body to function properly. A very mundane analogy might be that of an automobile mechanic. The mechanic, with the hood raised so that he has access to the motor, repairs the motor and the car is made to be in running order.
Back to Top
Does God control the nature of the world?
When God expelled man from his original creation, known in the Bible as the Garden of Eden, he punished man by saying:
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life, thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat of the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust and to dust you shall return.” [xii]
In the Garden of Eden, or as God originally created the planet Earth, storms and other natural catastrophes as we know them today probably did not exist, or did not exist in the severity that they do today. There might have been a very high cloud of ice particles enveloping the earth that could have acted as something of a greenhouse that more evenly distributed the temperature from the sun. This more evenly distributed temperature over the surface of the earth may have moderated the severity of the weather as we know it, or such storms may not have prevailed at all. This condition that then prevailed might have permitted forests to exist in the polar regions and could explain the coal deposits that currently are found. I recognize that the usual cause that has been expressed for these coal deposits is the shifting of the continental crusts of the earth, but the cloud of ice particles enveloping the earth, similar to the heavy cloud of other materials that has been found enveloping the planet Venus, could be a more likely explanation. This would not preclude the shifting of the continental crusts. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a very large meteorite striking the earth. This could have been the cause. The meteorite, however, might have caused the envelope of ice particles to collapse when it first struck this envelope before hitting the surface of the earth. The collapsing envelope, as it was drawn to the surface of the earth could have melted and become rain that caused the flood to destroy the population of human beings, dinosaurs, and all living creatures. This allowed God to begin again his experiment with humans beings having a free will starting with Noah rather than Adam. An evidence that such an envelope existed is the Biblical promise of God to Noah that he would never again destroy the earth with a flood of that sort, and he would set the rainbow in the sky as a continuing reminder of that promise:
“I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you [Noah] and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” [xiii]
When the envelope of ice particles surrounded the earth, the light from the sun was diffused and the rainbow as we now view it could not have occurred. Since that new beginning, however, storms of all sorts probably became more violent. God apparently did not choose to alter the situation and we experience violent and destructive storms at the present time. God must have not wanted to change the laws of nature, and it became more difficult for human beings to live in such an environment. It became another obstacle for the human spirit to grow in love, but if it did grow in love to fellow beings, God in turn could possibly rejoice that such a person could grow in the spirit in spite of devastating storms.
Even though God might not have wanted to alter the laws of nature, nevertheless, he is transcendent to our three-dimensional world and with his hand he could push the highs and lows around slightly as shown on a weather map. To protect a person he wanted to serve him by molding their thought or spirit, as discussed in the next section or two, God may divert the path of a storm through the power of his transcendent hand as he viewed the storm from the space-time continuum.
An evidence of God’s power over weather conditions is the Gospel account of Jesus Christ, during his public ministry, stilling the waves on the sea of Galilee:
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. A windstorm arose on the sea, so great that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him up, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a dead calm. They were amazed, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him.” [xiv]
Jesus Christ, through God his Father and Melchizedek, must have moved that storm that was swamping the boat on that occasion. On the other hand, God probably did not violate the laws of nature. From his transcendent position, he must have merely pushed the center of the storm far enough away so that the wind ceased.
These are the simple forms of God’s acting in the world of mankind. The lower dimensions of God in the being of Melchizedek would reach into a person’s body to heal it, or move a storm by a wind or his hand from his transcendent position in the fourth dimension of the spacetime continuum. But, what of the thinking minds of persons? God acts through persons, but to do that, how does God induce a person to act as his agent at a certain time and place to accomplish his purpose? How does God speak to one’s mind?
Back to Top
God acts through men and women.
I am very impressed by an account as told in the twelfth chapter of Numbers in the Old Testament of the Bible. Miriam and Aaron complain to God that he seems to favor Moses over them and they don’t like it. God orders them to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting together with Moses. When they come, the Holy Spirit of God appears as a pillar of cloud as during the Exodus experiences. God, through his Holy Spirit, said to Miriam and Aaron:
When there are prophets among you, I the Lord make myself known to them in visions, I speak with them in dreams. Not so with my servant Moses, he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face — clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the Lord. [xv]
The reference to Moses, “And he beholds the form of the Lord,” is a very positive statement that God has a physical form and can enter our three-dimensional world so that Moses can see him — this is the three dimensional form of God, indeed Melchisedek, who appeared to Abraham as well as to Moses and with whom Jesus Christ is equated in the Epistle to the Hebrews as a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
But, hark back to the first statement, when prophets are among his people, “I the Lord make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams.” This is how God speaks to some people, through dreams. We all dream, and for the most part our dreams are probably not the voice of God. Our usual dreams are likely dredged up by past experiences, hopes and fears. Nevertheless, God does have access to our minds which may function in the fifth dimension just as he has access to the internal structure of our physical body from the fourth dimension. It could be the Holy Spirit of God in the sixth physical dimension, transcendent to the possible fifth dimension of the mind, that God has access to our minds.
Our minds could be, and likely are, rather plastic and can be molded either by ourselves, or by the Holy Spirit of God, or a combination of both. We can say that a person has a great mind, or of another person, it is a shame that he has not developed his mind, it is still very small. The development of one’s mind on the part of the individual person, however, takes a long time and much effort. On the other hand, in the hands of God, the mind of a person might be changed quickly. This could have been the situation with the prophets of the Old Testament times when God spoke with them; he could mold their minds to dream dreams, and understand those dreams.
There are probably no persons living today who would be as were the prophets of the Old Testament. God may not speak to today’s “prophets” as he did 2000 or more years ago, but he may still speak, or cause a person or persons to think and act in a certain manner to carry out his wishes in our “membrane” world. I do not intend to say that God continually controls the mind of any given person because God has given every person since he created man the freedom of making his or her own decisions. What I do wish to suggest, however, is that at times, God can and possibly does choose to act in this world through a person or persons by molding his or her mind to accomplish his purpose. That molding might have changed the mind of that person to change his or her thinking and mode of life permanently, but it could also be for only the passing moment. I would further suggest that God’s molding of a person’s mind could be only temporary in all occasions but if that molding changes the thinking and mode of life of that person, it is that person’s decision to change his or her thinking permanently. Of course, God might have selected a given person who God could see would change permanently to act in the world, thereby carrying out his will, but it would be that person’s decision and will to change and not God’s coercion.
An interesting verse from the Gospel of Matthew seems to highlight God’s ability to see the physical shape and contours of any and all persons’ minds from his transcendent position. It is as follows:
But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. [xvi]
The key word in this verse is “sees.” God, your Father, transcendent to the fifth dimension of the mind, actually may see the mind of a person in physical form. That is to say, God may actually see your prayer by the form that your mind takes during your prayer. God not only sees your mind, but if he sees it, he can also touch it, and if he can touch it, he can also mold it if he wished for the person to carry out his wishes in our “membrane” world.
I think that God may thus act in the world through nudging the minds of persons. This raises another question. Is having access to the third dimension of persons in the process of healing, and having access to the minds of persons in the fifth dimension, the only ways in which God acts in this world? I think that there is yet one more method.
Back to Top
God acts through the human spirit.
If it is eventually found that the mind functions in the fifth dimension, transcendent to the brain in the “membrane” world of three dimensions and of the more solid world in the spacetime continuum, the human spirit could be conceived of as acting in the sixth dimension. This would be the crowning aspect of the human person. Both the spirit in the sixth dimension and the mind in the fifth dimension might be nourished by God through the “water and bread of life.”
There is a story in the Gospel of John that sheds some light upon the nourishment of the human spirit. Jesus is passing through Samaria and comes to a well which Jacob dug hundreds of years before that time. A woman was at the well to draw water. Jesus asked her for a drink. The Samaritans were outcasts in the eyes of the Jews. She asked him why he, being a Jew, would ask her for a drink or even speak to her. Jesus responded as follows:
“If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?” Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life. [xvii]
How is this water of life delivered by God to be “a spring of water gushing up to eternal life?” In my paper “God is One,” which is on this website, I have tried to describe the purpose of the Incarnation, Jesus’ public ministry, and the last minutes of the Crucifixion when Jesus cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” [xviii] It was at that moment that the “weld” of Jesus’ human spirit that he received from the humanity of Mary, his mother, to the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism, was broken. Jesus lost all connection from the Holy Spirit of God, but probably that break opened a “womb” in the Holy Spirit wherein all human beings from that moment onward in time became in effect in that womb during the whole of their lifetimes, from birth to death. It could be, on this line of reasoning, the Water of Life could flow from the Holy Spirit of God through a six-dimensional umbilical cord. How could all of the millions and even billions of people living in this world be in the womb of the Holy Spirit?
Turn with me to this section of my paper String Theory and the Human Mind which is on this website. The new Horva and Witten model of string theory indicates that the “length scale of quantum gravity, which hitherto has been equated to Planck’s constant… may be much larger… In principle this could allow extra dimensions approaching a millimeter.” This seems to suggest that a sub-atomic particle or string as extended into the higher dimensions could approach a millimeter in size! If I interpret this correctly, the higher dimensions as compared with the dimensions of our three-dimensional world could be very great [See the graph in the paper String Theory and the Human Mind.]. By comparison, our three dimensional physical bodies could be as ants in relation to the measurements of the higher dimensions of our minds and spirits. But, if our spirits are so large relative to our physical bodies, the question remains how could all of the human beings living in the world today fit into the womb of the Holy Spirit? The answer might be the size of the human spirit in the sixth dimension could still be as ants in comparison with the possible enormity of God. Furthermore, if our human spirits during this life until we are reborn in heaven, as Jesus said to Nicodemus, are mere fetuses in the womb, they might well fit into the womb of the Holy Spirit. After our death, they may mature to much greater size in heaven, or else die in heaven because they may mot be able to partake of the food of heaven.
The point that I wish to make is that human beings in the womb of the Holy Spirit are fed both the Water and Bread of Life that causes the human spirit to grow in the practice of agape love toward our fellow beings with whom we come into contact. This is not an easy task. I am not speaking of love toward people at a distance whom we see only rarely. I am speaking of love toward people we often come into contact — brothers and sisters, people in the office or school, people who can get on our nerves because of our close association with them. If we develop agape love toward them, even though it is an imperfect love, such love then easily spreads to the people more distant from us. It is this type of growth in agape love that is nourished by the Water and Bread of Life through that six-dimensional umbilical cord.
Many persons who have grown sufficiently in their sixth dimension of the spirit serve God in numerous ways. Their manifestation of love to their fellow beings can be influential to cause their friends to do likewise and to grow in the spirit. This could be an important aspect of God’s action in the world. These people carry the message of God’s Love to others and some of the others in turn spread the influence of God’s Love to still other people.. The message thereby proliferates and eventually spreads to peoples of all lands throughout our world.
The functioning of the human spirit in the sixth dimension is transcendent to the mind in the fifth dimension. It is therefore influential upon the mind to act in love toward other persons. The larger the spirit becomes, the more dominance that it has upon the mind. Hence, a great spirit dominates the mind to such an extent that the person with such a spirit functions almost automatically in love. On the other hand, an individual person may refuse to accept the Water and Bread of Life. That spirit withers because of a lack of the spiritual nourishment. The spirit looses more and more of its dominance over the mind and as its dominance diminishes the dominance of the mind increases. The mind becomes more like the mind of an animal whose survival is often of a violent nature. It is the survival of the fittest, often through violent action. God sometimes acts to cause such violence in persons, possibly through the shrinking of their human spirit. This is another way in which God acts through people.
Think with me of the mind and spirit of Pharaoh at the time of the plagues of Egypt. It is said many times that God hardened his heart. How might God have done that? The time of the Exodus, of course, was before the opening of the womb of the Holy Spirit; hence, the human spirit was not then nourished by the Water and Bread of Life and that source of Love could not be cut off from the human spirit of Pharaoh. On the other hand, the Fatherhood of God being in the seventh dimension [see my paper “God is One” which is on this website], transcendent to the sixth dimension of the spirit, could squeeze the human spirit of Pharaoh. He could literally wring out any love that he might have, at least for the moment.
The same reasoning could apply to other persons prior to the crucifixion when the womb of the Holy Spirit was opened to all of humanity. Think of the first King of the Hebrews, Saul. While he was yet King, David, without any military armor, but under the care of God, fought with the Philistine Goliath and killed him with a stone from his slingshot. This seemed to infuriate Saul and the ensuing chant of the Hebrews, “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands,” [xix] rung more love from Saul’s spirit by his own will. God might have even assisted in this ringing out of love because Saul did unrepentant evil in the sight of God. I mention that Saul, at least in a major part, brought this lack of love in his spirit toward David by his own will. We today, in spite of possibly being in the womb of the Holy Spirit, can ring our own spirits of love of another person by our will without God having anything to do with our actions. This could be our own downfall brought on by our own willful actions.
Another situation somewhat opposite to that of Saul was the case of King Cyrus of the Persians. Read with me the opening verses of the book of Ezra:
In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that the word of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom, and also in a written edict declared: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all of the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of those among you who are of his people — may their God be with them! — are now permitted to go up to Jerusalem in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel – he is the God who is in Jerusalem; and let all survivors, in whatever place they reside, be assisted by the people of their place with silver and gold, with goods and with animals, besides freewill offerings for the house of God in Jerusalem. [xx]
This is an amazing account. A very powerful king, who at that time ruled “all the kingdoms of the earth,” is chosen by God to carry out the will of God. What did God do to Cyrus to convince him to let any and all of the Hebrews return to Jerusalem who had been taken captive some years before by Babylon, which nation in turn had been captured by the Persians. I, of course, do not know what God did to Cyrus, but in the concept of higher dimensions, God must have kneaded or molded both the mind and spirit of Cyrus in such a manner that Cyrus spoke to his world as though it was his will to do what he proclaimed. Truly, it must have been the will of Cyrus, but it was in reality the will of God for Cyrus to allow the remnant of the Hebrews who were still living and who chose to return to Jerusalem, to so return. God might also have injected love into the human spirit of Cyrus, possibly as doctors today inject serums into the bodies of persons, except that hypodermic needle would have to have been a six-dimensional needle because God was then acting in the sixth dimension transcendently from his position of God the Father in the seventh dimension.
For the past 2000 years, everyone may be connected to God through the womb of his Holy Spirit through the six-dimensional umbilical cord whereby we can feed upon the Water and Bread of Life. That umbilical cord acts as the hypodermic needle did as suggested in the case of Cyrus. God can, and probably does have control of the volume of that nourishment, subject to the will of the individual person as to how much of that nourishment he or she will receive. Keep in mind, however, that God might choose to mould the mind of that individual, at least for the moment, so that that person may want to receive an abundance of that nourishment of love and act according to the will of God.
Back to Top
Conclusion.
I think that research on the higher dimensions greater than our three-dimensional world will dominate the minds of scholars during the 21st century. Articles such as the one from the August issue of Scientific American and research in string theory point strongly in this direction. This type of research will likely spread to many other subjects such as neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, philosophy and not least in theology.
Christianity and the Christian Church are in dire need for a reformation in the understanding of doctrine. Nothing has fundamentally changed in the interpretation of doctrine since the 4th and 5th centuries. Some Churches are prospering because they have a very positive message. But the “main-line” Protestant Churches do not seem to preach or teach doctrine because so much of it must be taken on faith without reason. In the scientific age that we have just now completed in the 20th century, people want strong reason for what they are told they should believe, and they are not getting it from either the pulpit or the teaching desk.
This is the reason that I have worked to write papers on this website and many others in the libraries of some universities, colleges and centers of learning. I hope that my work will stimulate other persons to study and do likewise.
To summarize what I have tried to say is this paper: God, being a seven-dimensional Being as compared with man being of only six dimensions, is transcendent to all human beings and indeed to all created things and matter. Therefore, God can control all things as he wishes just as you or I can control geometrical paper objects in a two-dimensional civilization on a table top as we stand beside that table. We can pick it up, turn it over, and return it to the table top civilization and its left hand becomes its right hand in a very mysterious fashion to the Flatlanders, but entirely knowledgeable to us and without violating any rule of nature.
This may be the way in which God acts in this world, chiefly through his created people.
Back to Top
© William Witherspoon – 2004
END NOTES:

[i] Janes, Julian, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, 1976, Houghton Mifflin Company.
[ii] Saunders, Nicholas T., Zygon, September 2000, pages 517-544.
[iii] Hodgson, Peter E., Zygon, September 2000, pages 505-516
[iv] Helrich, Carl S., Zygon, September 2000, pages 489-503.
[v] Koperski, Jeffrey, Zygon, September 2000, pages 545-559.
[vi] Kracher, Alfred, Zygon, September 2000, pages 481-487.
[vii] Nash, J. Madeleine, Time magazine, August 7, 2000. Page 68.
[viii] Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, Dvali, Scientific American, August 2000, pages 62-69.
[ix] Schacter, Daniel L., Searching for Memory, 1996, Basic Books, A Subsidiary of Perseus Books, L.L.C.
[x] Abbott, Edwin A., Flatland, Dover Publications, Inc.
[xi] Kaku, Mdichio, Hyperspace, 1994 Oxford University Press, page 11 and forward.
[xii] The Bible, Genesis 3:12-19.
[xiii] The Bible, Genesis 9:11-15.
[xiv] The Bible, Matthew 8:23-27.
[xv] The Bible, Numbers 12:6-8.
[xvi] The Bible, Matthew 6:6.
[xvii] The Bible, The Gospel of John, 4:10-14.
[xviii] The Bible, Matthew 27:46.
[xix] The Bible, 1 Samuel 18:7.
[xx] The Bible, Ezra 1:1-4.

Posted in Mind, Personal Improvement, Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Get Happy – one short film that wakes me up!

Posted by hotcrowd on May 29, 2010

A Short Film by Bad Clams Productions & Swells Productions.

Written and Directed by Mark Osborne.

Sony Music Entertainment
More – the short animated film
Gethappy.com More related topics, products, video, bio, and commentary.

Posted in Children, Historical Studies, Hobbies and Leisure, Language, Mind, Music, Personal Improvement, SongsandCulture, Spirituality, Symbolism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Wonderful world of words…what does it mean?

Posted by hotcrowd on December 20, 2009

‘A murder of crows’ – what?

‘A butt load’ – how much?

“Youth fills you with optimistic thoughts, bursts with energy, and brims with confidence. It is the stage where you feel that your calling in life is to change the existing order for betterment arrogating the role of the social arbiter.”
Philip Fernando; Understanding the JVP; Daily News (Colombo, Sri Lanka); Dec 8, 2009.

Find out what it all means here:
startwright.com
westegg.com/etymology
krysstal.com/words and names
etymonline.com
merriam-webster.com

Posted in Amazingly Helpful Resources and Sites, Historical Studies, Hobbies and Leisure, Language, Mind, Personal Improvement, SongsandCulture, Storytelling, Study Habits, Symbolism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Technologies/inventions predicted by imaginative sci-fi authors since 17th century

Posted by hotcrowd on December 16, 2009

What an amazing world we live in.

Ever ponder about how early ago these modern marvels of our world were first imagined and invented?

You may be surprised at just how far back they go.
Discover for yourself at the site below. This is one of my favourites.

technovelgy.com

Credit Card (from Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy) – A simple card that is used in place of money

Live News (from In the Year 2889 by Jules Verne) – The modern concept of a news broadcast.

Magnetic Railroads (from A Journey In Other Worlds by John Jacob Astor IV) – A scheme for powering railroads using enormous electromagnets.

Atomic Bomb (from The Crack of Doom by Robert Cromie) – Splitting the atom to release immensely powerful forces

Networked World (from When the Sleeper Wakes by H.G. Wells) – Very early description of our dependence on technology and communication.

Posted in Amazingly Helpful Resources and Sites, Futurist Topics, Historical Studies, Hobbies and Leisure, Mind | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thoughts of today.

Posted by hotcrowd on December 11, 2009



I came into this world naked and will leave this world naked.

I have all I need. I shall be content. I will not worry. I will not fear. Freely I have received, freely I give. I am thankful. I am hopeful. I am alive.

Posted in Body, Hobbies and Leisure, Mind, Personal Improvement, SongsandCulture, Spirituality, Symbolism | Leave a Comment »

Does literature contain secret forebodings?

Posted by hotcrowd on August 2, 2009

What do we make of these mysterious intimations of future events? How do some souls obtain seemingly supernatural insight into the supraconscious realms? Is it mere coincidence?
Take this story for example.

Book Foretells the RMS Titanic Disaster
Author Morgan Robertson’s Book Very Similar to Real-Life Tragedy
© Emily Eppig
Nov 19, 2008

Morgan Robertson wrote Futility fourteen years before the RMS Titanic sunk in the Atlantic Ocean. Many details in his book are eerily similar to the real-life tragedy.

A book written in 1898 by Morgan Robertson entitled Futility closely mirrors the real-life tragedy of the RMS Titanic that occurred 14 years later. In Robertson’s book, a transatlantic liner called the Titan crosses the Atlantic Ocean on her maiden voyage, strikes an iceberg on her starboard side and sinks.
Similarities Between Futility and the RMS Titanic Disaster
• The first and most obvious similarity is that Robertson called his ship the Titan.
• Both the fictional ship and the real ship sunk during the month of April – the Titan on the 15th and the Titanic on the 14th.
• The Titan carried 24 lifeboats and 3,000 passengers while the Titanic carried 20 lifeboats and 2,207 passengers.
• The Titan measured at 800 feet long and weighed 75,000 tons and the Titanic measured at 882.5 feet and weighed 66,000 tons.
• Both ships had three propellers.
• Both ships were going between 23 to 25 knots upon striking an iceberg.
• Both ships sunk in similar areas of the Atlantic and the Titan left from New York to sail to England while the Titanic left England to sail to New York.
• In the fictional tale, the ship was called the largest ship of the time, unsinkable and “one of the greatest works of man”. The Titanic was also the largest ship at the time, it was called unsinkable, and “a wonder of the age”.
Details Were Added to Reprints of Futility after the Titanic Sunk
After the tragedy of the Titanic in 1912, Futility was reprinted and several reprints since then have claimed to be the original work. Jack W. Hannah in Mansfield, Ohio printed the only true genuine reprint of the original in 1975. All the others have added details to make the “prophecy” more compelling – as if the similarities were not already weird enough.
Was Morgan Robertson Psychic?
Some believe that Robertson did in fact possess some kind of extrasensory perception that enabled him to tell the story of the RMS Titanic 14 years prior to the sinking. Robertson was poor most of his life and no evidence supports that his situation changed after the real-life tragedy of the Titanic took place. Robertson died in 1915 of a drug overdose at the age of 53.
In fact, one of his other books has some mysterious parallels with a major world event. This particular book, written in 1905 and called the The Submarine Destroyer dealt with a futuristic war between the United States and Japan. In the book, Japan carries out sneak-attacks on the United States. In the fictional story, the United States entered into war with Japan during the month of December and the war was fought with aircraft carrying what he termed “sun bombs”. These sun bombs exploded with such ferocity that they emitted a flash of blinding light and destroyed whole cities.

Sources:
Gardner, Mark. The Wreck of the Titanic Foretold. Prometheus Books. 1007
Robertson, Morgan. The Wreck of the Titan or Futility. Filiguarian Publishing. 1996

Weird, wild, stuff.
bh

Posted in Futurist Topics, Historical Studies, Language, Mind, Spirituality, Storytelling, Symbolism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »