4/13/2019 6:18 a.m. (typed up on 4/21/2019)
An inner dialogue with my inner voices, or “The Club,” as they introduce themselves to me in this session.
Think of it like a dialogue with my subconscious in a form of stream-of-consciousness writing. It helps me formulate my thoughts, bring them to the surface, and develop them further. But sometimes, new insight are added. And I am not sure where they come from. I leave the question open. You be the judge
This was an important session. I typed this up into the system about a week later (4/21/2019), and can see now in retrospect how insights came of it in other sessions, that I could not see at the moment.
Hanns: As I lay here, I am thinking about who to have a dialogue with, about reconciling QM [quantum mechanics] with relativity.
Names like Bohr, Bohm, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg come to mind.
Did I miss anybody? It’s kind of all the big ones.
An answer comes: “Feynman”
Hanns: And as I lay here, I have this sense of dread, anxiety, that I don’t have the answers yet. I got an insight last night, but I can’t put it together yet [see below]. And that it would be a failure.
Answer: Failure is the way of the scientist. In other words, “I have nothing to lose but only to gain.” So let’s fail together.
H: So who’s there?
Answer: The Club [ said in a funny sense ]
H: What club? [curious, startled, bemused ]
Answer: You know there was the movie “The dead poet’s society.” We are the “dead philosopher/physicist society.” [ laughing again] [ As a note: I have no idea where that came from, I had seen that move, oh, maybe 20 years ago]
H: Why did I get philosopher now first?
Answer: Because that was the mistake we made. Too much science, not enough philosophy to pu tint into perspective. Only David [Bohm] got it right.
H: But Heisenberg et. al., they saw it, too. I can’t remember his first name.
C: go look it up. Let’s not wait again and feel anxious. Sometimes it is better to just supplement
[I looked it up. It was Werner Heisenberg. But it was wrong! I meant Schrödinger, and I had Schrödinger actually come up in my mind: Erwin! But my consciousness overwrote my subconscious , which knew the answer . SEE IMPORTANT NOTE BELOW!** ]
A: So there you go. “Werner” [in quotation, again, see the note below** ]is here, is a founding member of the club. He saw it back then more than most Then Bohm came. Later we let Einstein in. Then Feynman. He’s fun. Playing the bongos and all. Makes it all so much more lively.
H: So what should I call you?
A: “The Club”
[smiles all around ]
H: Ok, club!
The Club ( C ): You are a club member, too.
H: But I am lacking in Math.
C: Sometimes it takes more. Up here, language is different. Math is only another language in 3D space to bring out parts of the whole, to understand it. You just looked up [the word] “dimension” recently, as David had asked you to. What did you find?
H: Yes, it was interesting. Dimension is tied to “measure.” It kind of stunned me. To measure? It goes back to a root word ‘me/ma-‘. And I remember, Devdutt [Pattanaik] talking about the [Hindu] word “Maya” and that it also meant ‘to measure.’ Maya is a measure of “ultimate reality,” a measuring. So that we can understand it. So Maya is NOT an illusion, a veil, but our human [… pause.. I struggle to find a word… I know that this is not the best: ] “Mind” to understand it all. Back then, when I read that, it was a big insight. [Maya is not a veil, as I had always thought before].
And now I get “dimension” is the same. As I always had felt about it. It is just a human concept, laying a grid over All-That-Is.
C: Exactly. And time is also just a dimension. [ a human construct, in the sense of Maya ]
C: You saw that before, the other day. We said, time is not THE 4th dimension, but only one of infinite 4th dimensions.
[pause, I am thinking ]
H: But time seems to be stretching in relativity. And is discrete in QM. [THAT is one reasons why QM and relativity cannot be combined]
C: Granular vs whole. What was Werner’s book [that I saw when I looked up his name]: "The part and the Whole." If you now take the same principle to time, it is the same thing. Why would the principle, say wave/particle, that seems to appear in space, not also apply to time if this is part of the whole, and only human thinking sees it as separate.
H: I see a bit what you are saying, but I can’t make the connection yet to my insight last night.
C: State it.
H: As I moved back and forth from the light(source) in the hallway, my shadow lengthened/shortened. It was a metaphor for the time dilation in relativity [time/space compresses depending on speed or gravity]. *
*[All this here was worked out a few days later. This turned out to indeed be the key metaphor, just as I had felt when I received the insight. But it took me several days to work through. I have not posted this yet, as I still need to fill in some other ideas before, just as this post here. ]
C: Right. But you also got that YOU were not moving. But what?
H: Consciousness was moving through the All-That-is. [ that is an older insight, see here]
C: Local consciousness.
C: What was the other insight?
H: the hologram. It needs a reference beam the enfolded the 3D image.
C: And you made the connection, which is:
H: The light(source) in the example was the All-That-Is. That is the reference frame.
C: Not quite. But close enough. [ I can see it now, they were guiding without leading ]
H: And now I am stuck.
C: Yes, you are. Not a bad place to be!
C: Reread. Refous. Focus
[Rereading: time is same principle. Particle vs wave]
C: Go sleep on it some more…
[a bit later]
Hanns: So I got two insights as I laid here. It again ties back to consciousness that is the part that is missing.
#1 An experience can also seem like time passes slow of fast. If consciousness is fully engaged it is like time flies. If not, it is mundane, and time seems to crawl.
C: Exactly, it is how much engaged you are.
H: The other one was, that about physical movement, and it depends on the observer, or local consciousness. ( I draw some diagrams that show time/space compressing )
C: But really you are talking about the experience of consciousness.
I draw a line here, because I go into a page long monologues. It has the feel of my active thinking now taking over. I do not think that I still am in a dialogue with the club here. But there are some interesting insights, which I want to just summarize; maybe something will come off it later… The point is that matter, time AND consciousness can be quantized as well. I mention something Seth had said, the CU, the consciousness unit.
“If you think of not just matter as quantified, but also time/space, and local consciousness, you get the same flavor. The unfolding [of the whole] is a quantizing of all three aspects. … “As consciousness unfolds as well along with matter … it can only experience so much in a single choice point. … if a choice propels consciousness further, then time/space HAS to slow down or compress. There is only so much time/space you can pack into a unit of consciousness. …
But [consciousness] always moves.
C: Consciousness always moves. Now you got it.
[It turned out, this last one was right, but ‘move’ can be read in different ways]
As I said, I had the feeling that the first part was genuine, but the later part was sort of my mind taking over.
Later that day, at 4/13/2019, 5PM, I got this:
C: “You mind is not ready yet. You have not had the crucial insight. Once you have made it, we are here to explain it. Keep thinking about it.”
The insight then came a day or two later. As they said in subsequent sessions: "It does not help you if we just tell you; you have to find it out yourself, because only then it is yours!"
I was missing an important paradigm shift. I have not posted it yet, because I need to explain a couple more concepts before.
** Here is the note I refer to above, when I try to figure out the first name of Heisenberg.
So I look it up and it was Werner. I felt relief but it turned out wrong. What I wanted to is to look up the author of a book I have downstairs in my library: “My view of the world. “ The next day I got it and it was Erwin Schrödinger! And the whole time as I was thinking about the first name, I had the name “Erwin” come up! But my active consciousness stepped in, and remember thinking “No, Erwin was Schrödinger. That is not right. I am looking for Heisenberg. ” I was so anxious that I would come up with a wrong name, that I somehow shoehorned Heisenberg into the conversation. I had them flipped.
The lesson is, I should have just trusted my insights! But I am still learning this process.
But maybe three is more to this.
Because the dialogue above goes on, it does say that ‘ “Werner” was a founding member of the club.’ Note the quotes, which I take that somhow Erwin should have been there.
So, in the days that follow I order some books by Heisenberg about his philosophy. And I get it: he DID understand the implications. Very much. But he went the other way: instead of allowing let’s call it metaphysics to become part of the new physics, he and Bohr tried to keep it clean. So there is a philosophy here.
So yes: Heisenberg WAS part of the founding members of the club!
It is just at odds with what I believe in the core of my heart. Schrödinger felt the same, I reread his book. Bohm felt the same. Einstein also, to some degree.
Heisenberg and Bohr are at other ends of the spectrum, staying on the safe side (epistemology vs ontology, for those how know what I mean). They represent the prevailing view of science today.
And I understand now: I have to reconcile his views into myself, and see the other side, understand it, for that is the side that the science of today grew into.
A greater view can only emerge by elevating both sides.
A tall order. I have no idea on how to do this. Only time will tell. Relative time, that is?
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr