I dedicate this site to the memory of my stepdaughter, Heather, who was murdered on Thanksgiving 2017. I want to chronicle some of the events and spiritual insights that happened. It is my hope that this may help some other souls who stumble upon this site. Maybe some good can come off this after all (read more here).  ~ May 2018

Click on a topic below to expand it. You can move and zoom as well.

Consciousness of Atoms and Electrons

On Dialogue and Communication between Entangled Minds. Finding a common ground.

Saturday, 10/19/2019  8:35 a.m.

[…]  I’d like to talk about an insight I had yesterday and maybe expand on it a bit. So are you here?  No answer. Fine, so let me state my insight now…

The Club:  (faintly)  We are here.

[...] OK, so should I state it?

Yes, go ahead:


So in prior sessions we talked about the layers of consciousness, whereas layers is a wrong word, but it will suffice.  Everything has consciousness:  atomic, to cell, to organs, to human, to planets, galaxies, and the universe, etc.  [distraction]   Fine, so what is really atomic consciousness?  In the past, it was briefly mentioned… [distraction again, moving] … that an electron may be aware of another and so on.

So a new thing here to consider is: all subatomic elements of the same nature, say an electron with up-spin, are identical and non-distinguishable. You cannot tell one form the other, there are no distinguishable features compared to, say, how one human looks different from the next. They appear all the same.

So what then distinguishes them?  And I thought, with humans we also have the environment and spiritual heritage that makes us who we are.  So electrons have to have this as well.

OK, so let me hand over now?


Why, you are doing good. But OK. We can expand on your thoughts – as you already had them yesterday.  So yes, there is more to it than “seen by eye.”  Electrons will appear in a certain space and time location, as can be computed by some probability. Why?  Bohm postulates that there is deeper “mechanism” still to be discovered that sorts of guides the electron to this location; Everett would say, it takes all possibilities at once.  No matter, yes …

[jumbled thoughts]
I got lost.


Yes, time to slow it down. You are overlaying your thoughts.  Just listen deeper.

[Taking a breath, focusing, now in a slower and deliberate voice]

Anything in 3D exists only for a limited time. With humans, it is the their lifespan. Cells come and go. And so it is with atoms – always in flux. An electron will appear in a certain location and then disappear, so do protons and all other particles.  That is the lifespan of the element. During any perceived entity’s lifespan [as always, entity means “composite entity”], there is consciousness for that entity – as is appropriate for that entity.

[As I type this up, I introduced the sentence “composite entity,” based on many past discussions.  But I also got, that the makeup of these composites may have to do how alternatives are registered]

So human consciousness lasts a human lifetime and deals with questions at that level and capacity of a human.  

For an electron, or sub-atomic particle, it is similar; just at a much “smaller scale” of consciousness. Here, the electron exists for only a very short period of time. And all it is “interested” in are things in its environment, and the “history” of that environment, and actions that happen to it.  So it deals with, for example, fields a lot, like electromagnetic, strong and weak force, gravity, and so on.  And how this field is set up, including if there are other electrons, and an observer.


I’ve been waiting for that word, “the observer.”  So that causes a change in that field?


It is part of it, there is no separation. […]  Let’s go on.  So that is the scope of this level.

But then, as with any consciousness, there is choice.  Out of this total situation, there now appear choices [alternatives] that can be “discerned”* by the electron.  
*[“discern” literally means to separate apart.]  

And as part of the iteration, the electron or its consciousness will choose one such choice [alternative] – IN THIS TIMELINE.  But as is with ALL consciousness, really all choices [alternatives]  are taken by its variants.  So the electron, just as you do, takes all choices, it “branches” so to speak.


So here is Everett’s infinity branching [many-worlds-interpretation of quantum physics], which is hard to fathom.

Right, but ALSO [underlined] at the same point you have infinite “reconciling,” different branched realities can reunite again. You still have infinities here, but each moment, as you wrote, forms a unity of its past, its present, and its future.

Right. So it seems like here we are going towards a combination of Bohm and Everett:  All that could ever be, will be, but in each branch the electron has to be “guided” to its new location in the next iterated moment, or “shih,” or phenomenon.

Close enough.  And it also would appear stochastic or random.

Which is how we would describe what we see at the quantum level.  In fact, it is the basis of the Copenhagen interpretation.


Fine. Details over which you 3D-ers argue at end (smiling).

Really, again, it is one whole expressing itself into all possible choices and situations.

OK, so the electron perceives or senses at its level of consciousness the situation as a whole – all fields, and if you want, other consciousness – and based on this perceives the choices [alternatives] open to it;  then, as part of the iteration, chooses its variant timeline and then unfolds gain.

So you have several aspects of consciousness here:  perception of a situation and its alternatives, and then the choice of one alternative for ITS VARIANT, into a new situation which also may recombine infinite previous states from other variants.

That, in a nutshell, is the process of ANY consciousness, at any level.

It just happens asynchronously for each element and level. Some are more often (atomic), some less often (human), some even less (planetary, universal);  and yet – as we had it in the analogy of the ocean – it all combines into this [underlined]  background shared by all.


Good.  I am happy with how this got stated.

All this was in your mind, unfocused already, yesterday after you had this insight.  The insight was new. What happened here with us [in this dialogue], is just the focusing of this insight into more concrete results or necessary expansions.  This is how the process often works: We help to give a new insight, which given the existing knowledge in the mind, can be expanded further.   Only, not everybody does [take the effort to do so].

OK. I’m glad we had this little talk.  Until next time.

Happy choosing!  (smiling)

9:15 a.m.

Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.

Add new comment

New comments may be reviewed for approval by an administrator.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Enter the characters shown in the image.