Sunday 10/20/2019 8:30 a.m.

*What a gray day! Fog, mist, wet. Yet this morning, there is a certain beauty about it. Serene, peaceful Sunday morning. I sit outside under the porch, and listen to a few birds chirping, the few that have not started the migration south to warmer regions… Fine, and so I tune in…*

*I would like to have a session on variants and taking all the alternatives. We had talked about it at length, how we at our level of consciousness perceive various alternatives in a given total situation, and then choose one in this lifeline, while my variants take all the others with all weightings (or convictions). Thereby all paths are always explored, with all possible weights.*

*Yesterday I had two insights or related thoughts to this, and I’d like to talk about these. Are you there? [Nothing, tuning in...]. Club?*

The Club: We are here. We know your insights, of course, how could it be different?

*So, should I state them or you?*

Either way, go ahead.

*Fine. So the first insight was when I looked up the word “ alternative.” Today we use it in the sense that if there are multiple possible alternatives, then these are seen as mutually exclusive. If we choose one, this automatically means we reject the other.*

*But the original meaning of the word was different, [Latin: “alterninus”] meant to do one thing and then the other, to do by turn! So you do one after the other. Thereby, all paths are taken, tried out.*

*And that is exactly the implication what we talked about: we perceive alternatives, chose one for this timeline, but still all others are taken as well. Only, not “after another,” meaning spread out in linear time, but “simultaneously.”*

*Anything to add?*

Do you want us to give an “alternative” explanation? (smiling) […] No, that is in fact basically how it works. Of course, here you get somewhat hung up on linguistics, on a word, but that has always been a good access for you. But let’s get to the second insight, because that is maybe more important. State it.

*OK, so far we had talked about how all is information, potentially. […] But I only looked at this in the context of bits: either 0 or 1. Given this new definition of “alternatives” and our previous discussions, I made a connection to quantum computing.*

And here it comes…

*So in a quantum computer we use electrons to represent the bits. An electron has something called “a spin,” […] and that spin is either up or down, thereby 0 or 1 taken as a bit. But the electron can be in an in-between state, you can say it has n% up and m% down probability. Not only that, when it is in this in-between state, it really can have *all possible combinations

*of up/down, infinitely many, superpositioned “on top of each other.” This is then called a*

**qubit**(quantum bit), no longer just 0 or 1 but also everything in-between.*So in a way, if we pose a “question” to such a system, t he electron is trying out all possible answers at once. Now, I will not get into multiple electrons much, suffice it to say that if we have “just” 300 of such electrons entangled in a quantum computer, then we could have 2^{300} possible solutions, which is the number of atoms in the universe! So we could run virtually infinite computations at once.*

*So here are clearly several parallels to what we talked about.*

Good. So let us take over now. This goes back into the discussion about information, and that the universe has an information structure. Yet, we said it has this only at the level of where the choice has already been made, the 0 and 1s. Deeper down, it all kind of merges, or superimposes as you now say, in what you called the cosmic hologram, where all contains all else and vice versa. Now, this qubit state of “in-between” would then be linked to this, call it, deeper state.

*Bohm’s infinite order.*

Close enough.

*[It’s not flowing at all… ]*

Hanns, you are not trusting yourself. You must let it flow. Feel the anxiety inside of you. It cannot work like that, we cannot speak to you. You are imposing your preconceived notions to these thoughts. Relax into it. Whatever comes, comes. Just trust the process!

*Yes, just so anxious again, like I am making all this up.*

As we said, in a way you are. You are building on what is there already. We add snippets to it. The insights yesterday, was a new connection: choice -> alternatives as all are taken -> quantum computing -> qubits. We helped with that. You can’t expect to have all the answers as once. Just ease into it. This is hard technical stuff to convey. You need a basis for this!

*Yeah, now this sort of dialogue flows good.*

Of course, there are no technical questions, terms, and so on, that you/we need to translate, this is just “everyday” talk. So let us try again. And whatever comes though, comes through?

*OK, let’s try it.*

So*, *qubits and such go into the right direction, but it is not that easy. Qubits are all possibilities at once, but…

*[Again, no flow]*

But you got something! Just state it!

*That you have to give the quantum computer a question, give it a problem to compute!*

Exactly, so here is a separation, again, an isolation of nature into a system separate from the observer. And your scientists are even searching for problems such a system can solve. In the “real” universe, there is no such artificial separation. It is not that you take, say, 300 electrons and line them up, entangle them, isolate them, to solve a given problem, but of course each electron and sub-atomic particle is part of the whole! It expresses that whole! And that whole includes “an observer,” actually infinite observers, even each electron is an observer, of the total situation.

__THAT__ is the difference between these quantum computers and “true reality,” whatever that may be. Not an isolation of a part of nature, to be used to computer some problem, but all of nature computing itself, in infinite qubit states of information, that feed back into itself!

*OK, but are the electrons in a quantum computer not also part of nature?*

Of course they are, as is the solution that comes out, or al the solutions looked at simultaneously, it cannot be otherwise.

*So is this not a mini-simulation of how nature works?*

Only in a way, but in nature the solution is nature. Here it is the solving of a given problem, a given subpart, or pulling out a minimal subpart and solution on its own.

*Hmmm. So back to qubits and this superposition state?*

In a way, yes, that is __exactly__ what we talked about as far as all branches are taken. Yet, in the example of the quantum computer, we are looking for __ONE__ correct solution to the given problem, one answer. And that is not how nature works. All answers are always taken. There is no “the best” solution. Do you see the difference?

*Quantum computers: solve a difficult problem for “the best” answer. Nature: explore all answers. Now, I was wondering, though, could we not think of reality, in a way, where during the enfolded state all solutions are in fact tried out and one comes back out into reality?*

That is a slick thought, but then you would create a definite singular timeline [without branches]. You would create only a solution to the previous situation, and as we saw, that is not what happens. [Instead, ] Infinite branching and reconciling.

*OK, so to back up: these quantum computers and qubits are on to something, but not quite how nature “is using” it.*

Too much isolation. Of course, only a subset of the whole.

*So is the whole universe then a giant quantum computer?*

That gets into linguistics. First, remember, there is “something deeper” than merely electrons and quantum. That is the whole secret.

Second, the term “computer” means again to compute a solution. But here, “nature” works with itself. It does not really “compute”, which means it applies some sort of algorithm. Rather, it “feels” and brings out to itself the current situation and so on.

So, seen from one view: Yes, it is somewhat like a giant “computer,” but not. Do you see?

*A bit. All so abstract!*

Exactly. Your mind [the human mind] can only work with these abstractions, these models, like “the computer” – but an abstraction by definition slices away other parts of the whole! So you cannot see, ever, the whole thing. We talked about this.

So in a way, a quantum computer also slices away most of nature, it is an abstraction designed for solving problems. There are parts of nature in it, it uses much of the same “mechanism,” certainly much more than a traditional computer, but it is still only an abstraction of the whole.

*OK, a lot was said. But I am not really happy with the result.*

You want the secrets of the universe revealed – smiling. Sorry, won’t work like that.

*OK, so I guess we can keep trying. Let’s top for today. Enough food for thought.*

… or for insights that will come “out of the blue.” (laughing.)

*Let’s top. Until next time.*

Happy choosing!

9:30 a.m.

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

~Hanns

Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr

## Add new comment