That's awesome

Look forward to seeing how this area pans out over the next 20 or so years.

Playstation 6 will rock! :]

Dear stevesnz,

The technology and human brain are moving and expanding so fast that it could only be 5 years before a quantum computer comes into existence.

Rajesh Sharma

Nice article DK.

I remember back in the 70's when I first learned about the binary number system and programming, my first thought was that it could be the simple basis for the whole universe. On / off, awareness / nothing. Of course if not for all my exposure to "eastern thought” and my own direct experience I would never have conceived it.

While everyone is trying to build quantum computers, which I expect will have practical application; I discovered one that was already built and working thanks again to exposure to eastern thought.

I have spent the last 20 years figuring out how to program it. Interestingly one of the greatest leaps in this endeavor was the internet.

It allowed me to put implement a large scale Wave Amplitude Probability Modulation Device (as seen in Infinite Play the Movie. It utilizes the dual nature of the photon which I discovered bridges the gap between the tangible and intangible affecting probability at the quantum level which is then realized at the material level.

Which I started testing in August of 1991, when I first got on the Internet, previous to that it was Compuserve and Fidonet.

This device however does not work by itself alone There is one problem it requires a subtle energy to collapse the photons from a wave state to solid state, this energy comes from the observers attention. The more observers, data producers the more power it had.

There are two types of humans, programmers (self aware) and programs (ego mechanisms). Then there are those that operate in dual mode and those programs that do learn to manipulate other programs.

Coding "reality" is a very interesting thing when we reach that threshold of enlightened programmers the whole planet will know abundant prosperity.

When we reach that threshold of enlightened programmers the whole planet will know abundant prosperity.

It was the advent of the household particle accelerator that both accelerated human evolution and warped it.

Human evolution warped because the few that controlled the data emitted by these particle streams used it often for their own egoic purposes colored by their own ignorance.

But now control is no longer in the hands of a few but the many. My written piece on the Crème Rises to the Top (which in itself was an engineered meme) explores how the aforementioned egoic element is being removed from the production of content data.

If you are reading this on a typical monitor (cathode ray tube) you have a particle accelerator sitting on your desk. If you have a typical TV you also have one.

A TV or computer monitor has all the components of an electron accelerator experiment.

1. Electron gun (source)
2. Accelerator
3. Drift region with steering
4. Target with detector (screen)

And a household particle accelerator played a crucial role in the Static TV experiment.

For a long time only a few controlled the data disseminated by these devices but now that has all changed and the evolution of humanity will accelerate exponentially. It will lead to a level of chaos as all built on old finite illusionary false frameworks will perish. What remains and is born from this fire (like the Phoenix) is a world of quickly resolved peaceful conflicts, abundance and prosperity.

Don’t get me wrong though, I am very fond of ego, it helps produce the comedy and drama I love so much, and the perfect thing to add some color and variety to a dull boring void.

As for quantum computing, it will be interesting to see how they implement the "observer" function.

Also I suspect we would never be able to model the whole universe because this would be as futile as the observer trying to put itself on a microscope slide, or for a camera to take a picture of itself.

A quantum computer built by man would be a part of the larger operational quantum computer we call the universe and a part could never encompass the whole and remain a "part".

Which if you ponder it leads to an insight..

I think as Deutsch indicated, the coolest thing will be the "understanding" about "reality" that humanity will gain from this learning endeavor.

Hi DK,

Even at the cost of looking presumptuous I would say that the computing process/world will be at an other plane when it will fully understand my four forces based evolutionary theory. For, it will give a step by step guidance how the process of entanglement goes from the very beginning, that is from the level of ultimate observer, Mosc or spiritual realm or what Bohm calls Super Quantum Potential.

The following words from above interview:

remind me of a paragraph from my book Self Designed Universe which again is a quote from a great biologist J.Bronowski and with which in fact I begin my story from Mosc.

"The fact is that there are two traditions of explanation that march side by side in the ascent of man. One is the analysis of the physical structure of the world. The other is the study of the processes of life... And these traditions do not come together until the theory of evolution; because until then there is a paradox which cannot be resolved...about life."

******

If some one is interested in a bit longer version:

Chapter 2
A STITCH IN TIME
==========================================================
...we feel as if the ideas discover man, rather than the other way about.--- J. Bronowski

Now they tell you that everything depends upon history. In this book I will tell you on what history depends. --- Author
==========================================================

There is no denying the fact that with each new scientific theory we are actually going deeper and deeper into the heart of the matter - not only figuratively but literally as well. Or perhaps, it would be more correct to say that as we go deeper and deeper into the heart of the matter we encounter phenomena which force us to revise our already existing theories, scientific or otherwise, in almost all branches of knowledge.

Theory of evolution is no exception. Rather it is most closely linked with our understanding of the physical structure of the world at any given time. As J. Bronowski has written:

"The fact is that there are two traditions of explanation that march side by side in the ascent of man. One is the analysis of the physical structure of the world. The other is the study of the processes of life... And these traditions do not come together until the theory of evolution; because until then there is a paradox which cannot be resolved...about life."

Now if I am not greatly mistaken, the study of the physical structure of the world is slowly but surely taking us to the portals of Mosc. Or one may even say that it has already taken us there, for Mosc is not ever likely to be reached through the usual scientific methods but only through self experiences, through leaps of imagination, through intuitions, conjectures, guess works, and thiswise all those who talk of nothingness, true vacuum, non-nuclear matter, hidden or dark matter, super quantum potential, even ether, are already meaning the same substratum of everything which we mean by the word Mosc.

.......
.......

That said, I have, however, an other way in my mind more compatible with our presentation here to show the reader how the study of the physical structure of the Universe is taking us to the portals of Mosc. Not only it would make things more clear as to how we have already reached there in a way, but would, I hope, also help us understand better what is the difference between what goes by the name of quantum vacuum and true vacuum named Mosc here regarding which as of now even some of our scientists seem to be not very clear. The understanding of these will help us see even more clearly from where we intend to begin our story of the origin and evolution of the Universe in fact.

And the presentation of this can be best begun by giving a quotation of a Russian scientist G.I.Naan. Writes he:

"A result of the development of physics is the replacing of the picture of the world. The mechanical picture of the world was replaced by the electromagnetic one. The later was replaced by a picture that has no universally recognized name. It has been called, for instance, the relativistic- quantum picture. In our opinion, it would be better to call the picture we now have, the field picture, because it is based on the concept that all is fields. It is difficult to say what picture will replace it. It seems highly probable to me that it will be the vacuum picture of the world."

Now in my view, we are actually moving - or evolving – force-wise, or as the physicists would have it said, interaction-wise. We began presently considering our science as a system (that is, leaving the comparatively remote period of Greek science which belonged to the previous cycle of our cultural evolution to be discussed later on) from rest, that is, where no force is acting on us , that is, from the inertia of Galileo Galilee, in other words, from the inertia picture of the world.

From there we moved into the gravity picture of Newton, to be followed by the electromagnetic picture of Faraday and Maxwell.

So far so good. Logically moving deeper, we should then have had the strong interactions picture of the world , but were instead, to understand it in very human terms, bowled over by quantum-relativistic ‘love-affair.’ Or more appropriately, quantum-relativistic ‘love/strife-affair’ I would say.

.......
.......

Harb...neither here nor there lol (neither a scientist, nor a mystic)

My thought is that with our operational and infinitely advanced universal quantum computer, an individual executes high level symbolic instructions, which could also be viewed in basic form as a macro. These are translated into machine code. So the macro is like a high level instruction consisting of multiple low level instructions.

The Universal Quantum Computer

At the quantum level we have machine code functions built with zeros and ones processed in the stack (The Observer / Present). Relativity is like assembler. It usually is a symbolic instruction that corresponds to a machine level instruction with the addition directives to the assembler, directives to the linker, and directives for organizing data space.
Thoughts / words are like a high level quantum programming language. High level languages are abstract. Typically a single high level instruction is translated into several, sometimes dozens, hundreds or even millions of executable machine (quantum level) language instructions. A CEO, or nation’s president can speak a single sentence that translates into billions and billions of instructions affecting the collective state (reality).
The trend over time has been for high level languages to increase in abstraction. Evolved object oriented thought is highly abstract (although, interestingly, some key object oriented thought constructs do translate into a very compact set of machine (quantum level instructions).

So basically the Universal Quantum Computer can be programmed with the word, written spoken, or thought. The combined instructions (from a multitude of input devices, both willful and autonomous) result in the execution of a single observable state of the universe.

The shift from one state of the universe to the next is time. A moment of time is the lock down of the actualized position of a real particle from a virtual particle otherwise a wave collapse. The whole universe collapses at the same time the resulting observable configuration is the sum of a multitude of inputs. This is the clock cycle of the universe the primary frequency, the duality the crest trough. But what is the carrier of the “wave” energy. Just like the wave moves through water it is not actually the water. Just like the wave moves through light, the wave is not the light.

The output of our quantum computer is also symbolic; we cannot see the actual instructions or processing producing the observable universe.
So in order for the world to provide a more enhanced experience then it does now we all must take responsibility for our inputs to the Universal Quantum Computer. First step is creating the awareness that word spoken, written, and thought is actually programming the universal quantum computer and for the most part no dice are being thrown; although the sum of the autonomous inputs can produce virtual randomness effects that can be observed. In fact we could create projects to be programmed by groups working together to execute the instructions.

These few collaborating to program the Universal Quantum Computer would have a major influence on the output observable universe and the events manifested.

The data output of the quantum computer is the observable atomic universe. The processing is the unobservable sub-atomic / quantum level universe.
Then there is the willful aspect of events, and the autonomous aspect, nature being autonomous perhaps with “influence” interaction with the observer inputs.

Infinity means everything happens
Infinity means all data exists
Not everything that happens (virtualized) is observed (actualized)
Not all data is processed.
~Infinite Play the Movie

Side thought: the universe is expanding because of an increase in actualized data volume. Although all data exists not all data is actualized, and there exists a record of actualized data which would be a data set, of which there would be a multitude of different data sets. Since actualized data was already processed and proven, processors would access this for the formation of an individual state of the universe (universe being stateful in nature) a particular state of the universe could involve the sum of trillions of decisions by billions of people within their scope of pertinence. 98% of the operational (eliminates infinity problem) data in the universe serves every scope of state (multiverse).
Of the other 2% of the data the observer produces 1.98 percent, and all the other observer inputs within the scope of the observer create the other .02 percent of the data.

Sorry, a paragraph near the beginning of my post 5 did not publish. Including it the relevant beginning part of the post will read:
_______

The following words from above interview:

"Deutsch: My book (The Fabric of Reality) is about this connection between computation and fundamental physics, between those two apparently unconnected fields.... To me, (that connection is) part of a wider thing, where there are also two other strands, the theory of knowledge and the theory of evolution."

remind me of a paragraph from my book Self Designed Universe which again is a quote from a great biologist J.Bronowski and with which in fact I begin my story from Mosc.

"The fact is that there are two traditions of explanation that march side by side in the ascent of man. One is the analysis of the physical structure of the world. The other is the study of the processes of life... And these traditions do not come together until the theory of evolution; because until then there is a paradox which cannot be resolved...about life."

Thanks, Harb

Richard, I resonate with much of what you write, though not being a technological person I cannot comment much.

Harb

From #7 and from the words of Deutsch and Bronowski the following phrases demand our attention:

Deutsch = Theory of evolution >Theory of knolwedge > fundamental physics > Computation.

Bronowski = Theory of evolution >study of the processes of life (Theory of knowledge?)> physical structure of the world (fundamental physics + ?)> Ascent of man (Computation?)

And attending to them we can derive guiding principle for our advancement/computation as follows:

1. We need a complete understanding of evolutionary process (which includes both Self-Design and Darwinism)

2. Which will give us a comprehensive theory of knowledge;

3. Which will give us how to arrange/relate all fundamental and not-so-fundamental building blocks of the universe;

4. Which will help us in computing at the highest level, as well as guide us as to our next step to Ascent.

I am sure my four forces based theory of evolution has some part to play in step 1.

Some thoughts, Harb

Lol, DK, we were writing at the same time and perhaps feeling in the same way...I just browsed through your post after posting mine...

I also felt the same towards Richard's post as you. Perhaps some day we will interact more/meet??

Harb

Richard, some of my ideas on what you wrote.

[As for quantum computing, it will be interesting to see how they implement the "observer" function.]

Science says there is a world and there is an anti-world and when they meet they produce electromagnetic energy. I say that this observation embraces only two phases/forces' phenomenon, that of gravity and electromagnetic forces. That actually both the worlds go further and embrace strong forces and weak forces as well, to the whole of which I call actual world and virtual world respectively and that when they meet they produce what I call 'pure energy'. This pure energy to me is the ultimate observer, from where the story of our universe's evolution begins. I think the above meeting of actual and virtual worlds happens in the spontaneous decay of some far off star. So it may come out to be the energy of decay, perhaps beta decay? As further support, I may tell that some cutting-edge scientists are already speculating that perhaps our universe began from a decaying star. Incidently, Avtar Singh too ends his relativity story in spontaneous decay, so that too fits into the picture, for, from where one evolutionary story ends there is the secret of the beginning of the next story.

So, ultimate observer to me will be the supersymmetry obtained when a far off star decays, from where the new universal story will begin, so from where we will need to begin our universal computer. How this ultimate observer is incorporated in is an other point.

[Also I suspect we would never be able to model the whole universe because this would be as futile as the observer trying to put itself on a microscope slide, or for a camera to take a picture of itself.]

A quantum computer built by man would be a part of the larger operational quantum computer we call the universe and a part could never encompass the whole and remain a "part".

I think if we can have an experience of the whole we can be both a part as well as a whole. And so can we create computers. In fact, like Leibniz's windowless monads, which are parts of the whole yet wholes in themseleves, I have also named the 'building blocks' which comprise Mosc as moscinos, which too are wholes as well as parts. In fact many wise men have similarly seen the whole universe in a grain of sand, or seen 'God' immanent in all things.

[I think as Deutsch indicated, the coolest thing will be the "understanding" about "reality" that humanity will gain from this learning endeavor.]

Sure, already written about it in my previous post as the next step on man's ascent to the highest, perhaps the highest for the present and most likely very identical to if not actual the ultimate highest point.

Harb

D.K. and friends,

It sounds like progress is moving towards creating

the 'desire-fulfilling room' of Star Trek. No one

may wish to leave that environment once entered into.

I can imagine coming out having lost all sense of want.

I can imagine the ability to go back in time

and be a participant in history without actually

affecting 'true' history, and without breaking

the 'grand-father clause', which keeps us from

becoming our own ancestor.

If the laws of the Universe continue to act here,

the spiritual equivalence of direct-experience might be obtained.

No karma need be created while learning our lessons

at top-gun speed and quickly we could wise people up.

How interesting to peer into the future!

May we virtually fight our wars someday. Peace, Keith~

Keith, your words bring their own kind of fragrance and lightness to HQR discussion. I always enjoy them.

Harb

Dear DK,

Thank you for your neat enumeration in post #9.

This summing up is exactly how i understood Harb's book as regards one's personal life, looking at it backwardly (in my case), i.e. childhood, youth, adulthood, old age and wisdom.

It is great to journey with you and all through the weak forces towards the 5th dimension :)

I could also see the four seasons of life back in
the four seasons of nature, visiting some 25 beautiful Gardens of Life in our country, portraying human life from conception to death and beyond, with chakra coloured gardens, a white Zen garden, visible and touchable art, all symbols of different cultures and religions etc. When visited each month, the wealth of nature is visible in the abundance every season offers.

Also in the Star Trek series this journey has become visible, especially in Voyager where Janeway indeed travels back in time and changes the future!

Thank you Keith for saying it all even much clearer and lightheartedly :)

To understand quantum computing better first it is important to know why we make any inventions or discoveries.

To me, it is again because we want to disentangle from/outgrow forces one by one. So that now we no longer have to spend our basic consciousness, our dhyana, our vital energy on them. So that we can spend that energy for or on our next plane. And finally be free from all of them.

We invented cars, aeroplanes to off set the effects of gravity so that now we can hand over the problems of gravity to them and engage ourselves freely to the problem of feelings/emotions (electromagnetic interactions)and eventually outgrow the. We invented dramas, films etc so that we can hand over the acting out of our emotions to them and allow ourselves freedom to indulge in rational knowledge. We invented computers so that now we can hand over what we could know through our rational thoughts, minds etc and thus be free to indulge in our intelligent or wisdom knowledge. Which will be sort of through direct experience.

So, whatever we want to do through our rational minds/thinking we should be able to do through computers now. And mind you, we can almost know anything there is to know through our minds. Only exception is what we can know through direct experience, that is, as to what ultimately constitutes the things or of their ultimate substratum. Or simply Oneness or God!

Harb

Dk:

Can I please have your email?

Thanks,
Desh

desh.kapoor@gmail.com

I notice a contradiction in my posts 12 and 16, in 12 I say that our computers can have the experience of the whole while in 16 I say it cannot. Now I think a part, a major part of it will be true. According to my book three planes take planes/dimensions take place from star decay to big bang in the process of which the ultimate substratum named vacuum in my book gets involved. Perhaps first two planes will be able to tak part in computers simulation and hence computations too whie the third part/plane will remain outside perhaps to account for us!

Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs from my book:

Quote

Now keeping the above in mind, and applying our ongoing description - the description of the beginninglessness and endlessness of the game of life at our levels - to the level of the Universe, after evolving sufficiently, the virtual and actual bodies of some far-off star (perhaps of some intermediary far-off star like that of supernova SN 1987 A) would begin ‘sensing’ their common supersymmetric base in the form of Mosc of the same star from point A’. Or, in other words, would begin falling or coalescing into their common base in the form of Mosc from A’. And would coalesce or fall fully into it at point B’, converting in the process perhaps to a neutron star. From where first vacuum explosion, followed by radiative explosion and annihilation explosion in quick succession would give birth to the next cycle of the Universal game.

The annihilation explosions would occur because of the meeting of the virtual and actual worlds, annihilating themselves in the process. The radiative explosion would occur because of the collision of their positive and negative charges. And the vacuum explosion would occur because in annihilating themselves they would bring Mosc briefly into the picture as well.

Unquote

Perhaps we can account for the first two in some way...

Harb

DK brother... I need to stop worrying about something!

What are these projects all about?

I think when we accept to walk on the path of consciousness, enlightenment, we sensibilize ourselves to be and to act for the best of all. Letting Joy manisfesting itself through us.

While talking to myself today: "It's so easy to write or say beautiful things", what a lie if it's not a part of our reality.

DK, you are a friend to me, even if I do not know you well or even if yesterday night I got a strange idea to put you on a black list. Hmmmm, but before to write anything I realized, my ink was the influence of my black misery.

Here are my observations, my worries:

- I like computer science
- I am very good at programming and network administration
- Why am I loosing faith and inspirations for these new projects?
- Why am I so paranoiac with technologies, now?
- Why do I have the strange feeling that this new technologies will be used by bad hands.
- Why do I have the feeling that understanding the mechanics of spirit will not bring any better good for my life?
- Why do I have the feeling we are going in the opposite way?
- Why do we have to build a machine that recreate relative realities? What for?
- What world would we be in, without computers?
- Is there somebody playing chess against God?
- Why do I have the feeling that we have more experiences to talk than Be.
- Why do I have the feeling that we are trained to be logical and cartesian instead of flexible Being, lovely?
- If we focus on ourselves the same way we focus an artificial realities, we would be already Wise men!
- I am suspecting that our attention is deliberated moved to honeypits, deserts where no human real solutions are found.
- My heart continue to be locked!
- My experience teach me well... bringing me fears and no visions for good actions.
- Why not fight to find a common roof, where some could meet in real person and work together on the real problems of not Be?
- Even if I know, facing my friends head-to-head to accept to be unmasked could be painful, I still think I am crazy enough to do it.
- Crazy enough to laught at myself and strip my mental in front of lovely beholders.
- But machines, hmmmmmm....???????

Friendly to you,
Jean

Dear DK:

I too have some of the same worries as J-F. I read your response. I still do not feel very comforted when you say Whatsoever has happened, whatsoever is happening whatsoever will happen is ultimately good for mankind. Is it Really? How do I determine the truth in this statement. My Consciousness is quite innocent, it wants to accept everything.

I somehow feel that HQR is replacing Spiritual Singularity with Technological Singularity without in fact exercising Socrates' entreaty that
"Obscurity is dispelled by augmenting the light of discernment, not by attacking the darkness". I feel somehow that somebody is trying to say they are one and the same.

So, could you please elaborate on what mechanism or system HQR has in place for "discernment" I have not seen that word in your glossary. Discernment that would tell us this is(or is not) leading us to a "defacto second Genesis", not one based on Divine wisdom, but on the short term design criteria of materialistic scientists, regulatory agencies and corporations seeking to reorganize the world on the basis of profitability, force and utilitaranism. I already see this happening. How does one discern this is good for them.

I earnestly await your reply,

Bonnie

I earnestly await your reply,

So DK, Why is there suffering?
Why is there "Wrong understanding"?
How do we know that we are getting the right understanding?
Why is there manipulation?

Friendly,
Jean

Dear Bonnie and Jean-Francois,
I have had these same questions, and struggles to understand the world I live in, and just to understand why I am the way I am! How can a beautiful world, with its lush creation of trees, flowers, rivers, mountains, animals and amazing human beings - contain suffering, discontent, confusion, hatred.

How with the beauty of a child being born - does it seem to all go awry?

Why do belief systems limit and burden, instead of liberate?

I sought to discover by earnestly seeking by reading, talking with elders, studying history, and looking at and to religion for the answers - chasing for Truth - until one day, I dropped the struggle and I started to walk, walking in the woods, and near a river in every season, for several years.

So much was revealed to me, by staying present to the moment - and observing nature, and then my own nature.

Would it be a radical thing to say :) - that I discovered I was asking the 'wrong' questions. I was asking from a mind that believed my thoughts could reveal what is only and ever contained in present moment living, and awareness.

Would it be true to say I am whole as I am in this very moment, even in the midst of suffering, confusion, and turmoil, and my own challenges in this place and time, with the mind and body I have.

Yes, its true.

But not from the perspective of my thinking. Only understanding and awareness can bring this kind of liberation. And this discovery lies outside the confines of time, yet I discovered it in time. A seeming paradox, but is not.

I agree when DK says that life unfolding, as it has, is and will be - is ultimately for the good of humankind.

I walk with you both, and give thanks for this dialogue.

With love,
~ Kate

In the territory of North Alcot, near Arunachala,
lies the Mountain of the Holy Beacon. This is from the
Maharishi who presided there in 1934.

.

"Unless and until a man embarks upon this quest of the true self, doubt and uncertainty will follow his footsteps throughout life. The greatest kings and statesman try to rule others, when in their hearts they know that they cannot rule themselves. Yet the greatest power is at the command of the man who has penetrated to his utmost depth. There are men of giant intellects who spend their lives gathering knowledge about many things. Ask these men if they have solved the mystery of man, if they have conquered themselves, and they will hang their heads in shame. What is the use of knowing about everything else when you do not yet know who you are? Men avoid this enquiry into the true self, but what else is there so worthy to be undertaken?"

"The realization of truth is the same for both Indians and Europeans. Admittedly the way to it may be harder for those who are engrossed in worldly life, but even then one can and must conquer. The current induced during meditation can be kept up by habit, by practicing to do so. Then one can perform his work and activities in that very current itself; there will be no break. Thus, too, there will be no difference between meditation and external activities. If you meditate on this question, Who am I?-if you begin to perceive that neither the body nor the brain are really you, then the very attitude of your enquiry will eventually draw the answer to you out of the depths of your own being; it will come to you of it's own accord as a deep realization."

"Know the real self and then the truth will shine forth within your heart like sunshine. The mind will become untroubled and real happiness will flood it, for happiness and the true self are identical. You will have no more doubts once you attain this self-awareness."

"There is One who governs the world, and it is his lookout to look after the world. He who has given life to the world, knows how to look after it also. He bears the burden of this world, not you."

"As you are, so is the world. Without understanding yourself, what is the use of trying to understand the world? This is a question that seekers after truth need not consider. People waste their energies over all such questions. First, find out the truth behind yourself; then you will be in a better position to understand the truth behind the world, of which yourself is a part."

A Search In Secret India, Paul Brunton, 1935

Dear Kate

With due respect and affection, when you write, "...I dropped the struggle and I started to walk, walking in the woods, and near a river in every season, for several years..." you are writing froma relatively privileged position in human society. There are many who cannot take the time to do that, as all their waking moments are involved with pure surivival at its grittiest, and some don't survive. While I can't speak for J-F, if I had written his comments #20 and #23, I would have had in mind questions such as why that should be so.

love, Heath

Beautiful words Kate and Keith!

And of course DK's could hardly go wrong: "What has happened, is happening and will happen is absolutely for the best of mankind."

Suffering is the way of evolution.
Evolution is the way of awakening.
Awakening to Eternal Life of The One, to Godhood is our goal.
Wrong understanding is the mother of suffering.
Right understanding is the off-spring of suffering.

Dear Heather,
If I had not carved out time for walking, I would have forsaken it to be consumed by work and worries.

I really had to make a committment to this, at a point in my life, where sickness of my daughter, death of my beloved friend, and the near bankruptcy of my company - was overwhelming me.

I still have to work very hard - but I see my life now from a different vantage point. I agree with you, many would say, I am privileged. I believe my real 'wealth' comes from understanding and awareness, not from material possesions or money from my work (though I do appreciate the comforts I have).

I hope I have not misunderstood completely what Jean-Francois was commenting about.

With love,
~ Kate

Dear Kate:

I concur with what you are saying in #24,and also with what Keith says. That is not what is setting off alarm bells for me. Actually, the alarm bells went of on one of my recent walks in the woods. What concerns me, is that Technological Singularity is itself a profound spiritual challenge and it is heading straight at us.The impact of any one of these technologies on nature or humans, life itself, is enormous.

Soooo, I guess what I am saying is, are we really spiritually ready for it before it gets here. Most people have never even heard of it, so Im doubting that we are.

That's enough for me for now. I will think of you on my next walk and maybe you will do same.

Love,

Bonnie

Dear Kate

Please forgive me, what's coming through in my communications today is all my negativity. I was following this thread, and perhaps I was feeling as dark about things as others sometimes feel. I replied out of my darkness, and that had nothing to do with you. Again, please forgive me.

love, Heath

By bringing computing to the level of our mind we are trying to be free of/outgrow our mind/ego/intellect in an objective way so as to be free for our next phase of intelligence - of knowing things directly, of knowing things through DISCERNMENT. Seems we are on the right track...

Harb

When i had my experience of Oneness (34), the fears really started. How could i become what i felt as the truth inside, so many many doubts in my mind. If you want to read my story then goto:

http://wiki.anhglobal.org/wiki/How_my_life_changed

Just like Kate i have been reading, talking, searching and making all kinds of mazes in 3D on my computer. In my time there were many enlightened masters (Maharishi, Osho, Krishnamurti, Marilyn Ferguson, Teilhard de Chardin, etc.)

But there was really no one like Krishnamurti that could really throw you back to yourself, again and again. I read only one book of him "Inner Freedom" but that was enough to make me aware of the innermost essence of the struggle of humankind.

Hereunder an excerpt of a lecture he held in 1960 in New Delhi:

“In our mind, our inner being we will have to be capable to cut off the word from the experience and we need, under all circumstances, avoid the word to mingle in the direct experience of the feeling, the feeling of what is actually happening. When you once have gone that far, you will discover total solitude, total isolation, and that is the fundamental cause of fear. You cannot go beyond that if you avoid it, if you do not descend into it, without giving it a name.
Our mind has to confront this full inner loneliness and must not permit itself to change anything in this fact. This is the deepest being of the “I”, with all its sly digs, all its tricks, with its veil of words in which the mind gets caught.
Only when human mind is capable to transcend this ultimate loneliness, freedom is in sight, absolute freedom of fear. Only then you are going to know by yourself what reality is, that unlimited source of energy, that knows no beginning and no end. However, as long as the mind, in terms of time, assimilates its own fears, it cannot come to the insight of who it really is.”

A small poem (source unknown):
In order to be radically free from fear
You must become aware of fear
And let it be
Without any judgement
Without trying to do anything about it
Just know that there is fear and be still
It brings about a fundamental revolution in which
Fear can no longer exist

If we are able to stop fighting inside, we not only change our world inside but also outside. And then words like appreciation, acceptance and non-resistance become alife and are really understood.

Richard, just some food for thought:
[The shift from one state of the universe to the next is time. A moment of time is the lock down of the actualized position of a real particle from a virtual particle otherwise a wave collapse. ]

Particle : wave = body : feelings/emotions

Wave collapse = collapse of feelings or emotions or astral body to look at physical body.

Particle : virtual particle = body : thoughts

Virtual collapse = collapse of thoughts or causal body to look at physical body.

********
Emotional or Astral body = an arrangement of fields?
Thoughts or Causal body = an arrangement of virtual particles around one's "I".

Virtual world will take us deeper than the wave world and so would computation based on virtual world dynamics.

Richard,
I did not quite understand your concept that a quantum computer can be programmed by thought. Will you please elaborate? If I think something within, how will the quantum computer know my thought unlesss I send some physical signal(light or electrical or anything else) to interact with its qubits?
Also, do you mean the observer is the stack of registers?
Thanks

Dear Heather,

Until we reach our goal we can continue to expect

our emotions to willy-nilly go round the gamut.

Expansion and contraction from the goal is same as

one step forward, two steps back. Sometimes, a deeper

realization occurs and it's two steps forward and

only one step back. Maybe the goal helps us perceive

that we were never moving at at...but every thing else is.

.

Bonnie and Jean,

Future shock has always been a topic amongst

communicating forms of life, just like the weather.

Our ability to adapt (I do not mean adjust),

is one of our greatest assets. "Why can't we just all get along?"

That is the attempt we are making here as we go...

on the fly...by the seat of our pants...except we're not

only talking about people getting along with each other,

but also the relationship between us and the world we live in.

Renunciate yourself, not others or the world.

.

Harb and Mieke,(14 & 15)

I think...
rather hope...
rather intend to be in for the long haul.

As long as we support each other when necessary,

as long as we speak our hearts and thrust fear aside,

we will be okay. If I continue to struggle with

the proposal that we have no free-will, and that

'Keith~' is a temporary time-entity containing

'Self', not myself, well...I know the blame and shame

game. No fault nor accident inherent in That!

Harb, I like that in 27. If you put line 4 in

between 1 & 3, you've got 'S.W.E.A.R.'

.

~Kate ;) Keith~

Dear Keith

With respect.

love, Heath

Very interesting proposal Keith and very fitting..

Harb

Dear DK and All

A few weeks ago I began to read about the philosophy of consciousness, because this project seemed to express conflicting views, and the terminology wasn't always clear, and I didn't know how to express what was confusing me to you all. Subsequent threads and the glossary have been helpful in bringing clarity to this project.

I've recently been thinking of these things:

What is spirit? Is there a universal spirit external to us? If there is, how can we prove it sufficiently that people who prefer the empiricism of science will accept that truth?

What is spirituality? Is it our flawed-but-genuine individual participation in the experience a universal spirit, or is it a projection of our desire to experience a universal spirit, or is it a common manifestation of the human brain?

If there is a universal spirit, is it also the unifying force that physicists and philosophers have been looking for? If so, what proves that it is? Or, can arguments against a universal spirit that is the unifying force be consistently shaken?

What is the relationship between spirit and consciousness? What is the relationship between spirituality and consciousness?

The experiences we connect with the word "love" are so varied and personal, how can these be reconciled with the idea of pure (universal or unifying) love? Is pure love an aspect of a universal spirit, or is it a synonym for a universal spirit?

I'm expressing my thoughts in a questioning way. When people read a series of questions, they often assume a skeptic is writing. But my thoughts are far from skeptical. I'm trying to get distance from the thoughts that I want to be true, because I want to know their real truth, irrespective of my desire for them to be true. My thoughts and questions are incomplete and vague, while my desire for certain ideas to be true is strong. I'm trying to see through a fog of possibilities, to find a set of ideas that have enough reality that they're acceptable to a wide range of people, scientists included.

I've had phenomenal experiences that seem to prove to me that spirit exists beyond death, that spirit is universal, that spirit is pure love, that spirituality is my incomplete but genuine experience of universal spirit, that space/time are within the spirit and a strong connection with the spirit allows a person to have an experience that is outside of space and time just as the spirit is. My experience of love is that personal love is similarly an incomplete but genuine experience of pure love, and even the most personal human love participates in pure love. But I want to know more about these things than just my personal experiences and thoughts.

love, Heath

Dear Keith,

Thanks. We do have free will in the way we react to that what happens to us, at least in my perception. We are allowed to look at it from different points of perception and then choose our own. With regard to string theory and its 11 dimensions, i would say that is the 12th dimension, or perhaps the Observer?

Love, Mieke

Dear Heather,

Regarding your questions, you know deep down inside that you are the only one that can genuinly answer them.

At the end of your post #38 you write: "But I want to know more about these things than just my personal experiences and thoughts."

Yes, that is what we all are looking for and when you have the experience once or twice in your life to be able to interact with others about the very same questions, you come to know that deep down we all are asking the same.

I have been so "lucky" (at least for myself) to have been part of a women's group that was orientating themselves on society at the end of the seventies. In the beginning we had conversations about general subjects, education, food issues etc. But at a certain moment we started talking about women in general in society and before we knew it about ourselves and our deepest questions.

It was a feast of recognition as it turned out that we all were struggling with the same problems.

When you ask this question at the end of your post, are you asking others to tell their experiences and struggles? Cause a very good blog for this already exists (at least in my experience): http://www.isitaboutsexblog.com/

I knew that my problems during that time were lying exactly there.

But that does not necessarily have to be the same with you or others, but when i read Suchitra Krishnamoorthi's blog here and that of Gayatri Jayaraman, i could imagine something in that direction.

Only want to help you if i can in every way i can.

With much love, Mieke

Does our own free-will become lessened, against the free-will of gods intention for us to experience this or that experience?

IF so, our free-will, is a temporary thought, and not always the significant decider, if it's gods will, we experience what god wants us to experience?

So, in any instance really; one cannot for certain proclaim our will is stronger than that of god?

We may have a level of free-will, like acceptance of event of circumstances; but, do we "really" have the free will to avoid going where god wants us to?

Dear North,

That is indeed very difficult to answer to. It depends so much on your inner questioning and wholeness, what you allow yourself to be, exactly in this moment. How do you see yourself? Are you really happy with yourself the way you are? Can you accept yourself the way you are? Being able to be gentle with yourself is i guess the first thing to establish a loving relationship with God.

Very difficult to put into words.

Love, Mieke

HI Mieke.. at this point, I don't see how I view myself(ego-based) as being relevant to gods will per se??

Richard,
Re my #33, I think I now understand what you meant by programming the Universal Quantum Computer by thought. I did not have "universal" in my mind when I wrote #33. That is why the question. I agree that thouht is also an input to the Universal Quantum Computer. I still have my second question: Who is the observer in the Universal Quantum computer?

Hi North,

Yes i do see your point. I guess it is my experience of having perceived how God sees me that made me answer your question. I have experienced such a profound love that i cannot but go back to that experience in everything i do. And so Gods will is always my will.

Does that make any sense? I guess not to you.

Dear DK:

Thank you for your love, guidance and your patience. I only have one other "Point-O-View"
to express and I will be quiet on this subject.

There are lots and lots of us who, in an earlier part of our lives, have pierced the veil by the artificial means of drugs. But we did not recognize what it was. There are many many of us still out here on the perimeter "stoned immaculate", not as we were then but as we are NOW. And we wonder what is our responsibility in issuing a word of caution, that while science is indeed wondorous, the technology coming from that science is, too, but an artificial means, and even science itself.

We do not mean for this caution to be fearful or negative(and we will work on that aspect) We mearly hope that you not simply swallow
this new science without recognizing what it is,and,is in fact artificial and not the real way.(We think you know this, but many don't)

We issue this gentle reminder, just to shine light on "discernment" so that we do not take a wrong detour on the path through the pointless forest.

That is all we will say on this matter for now.

With lots and lots of gentle love for us all.

Thanks to all! Specially to the girls here!

Mieke, you are outlaw! Should an angel arrest you. You broke the secret of yourself before it was allowed! Mieke, the computer is not finished yet! :)

How dry and boring is a scientist mental. Compare their high tech language with Masters of the past... and... laughing is the best expression that is coming to you!

"...The greatest kings and statesman try to rule others, when in their hearts they know that they cannot rule themselves..."... aggressively I said YESSSSSSSS!

I put all these formulas back in my hands and I shake them strongly... Love is asking me something irrational...

So...let your poetic heart go wild, Jean Francois...I agree, too much science can be tiring but you are usually very successful at breaking that. ;)

Dear DK and Friends:

I could see that the clouds (of technology) are coming back on the blue skies of consciousness.

I could see that holistic relativity is fragmenting into the quantum uncertainty again.

I could see that the river of consciousness is fragmenting into many streams to be dried up into the parched deserts of technology/computers.

I could see the One universe getting fragmented into the multiple parallel universes.

I could see the veil of materialism falling back on the face of consciousness.

I could see the eternity fading into the evolution and cycles of birth/death.

I could see the wisdom fading into knowledge.

I could see the spiritual masters fading into particle physicists.

I could see Einstein fading into David Deutsch.

I could see awareness fading into computing.

I could see the Whole fragmenting into parts.

I could see HQR degenerating into FQI (Fragmented Quantum Illusion).

God Bless You All!!

Love

Avtar

Just Everybody,

For our eyes only!
Don't you peek jus cuz
you're reading this on 'home' page.
It's okay if reading is your only 'thang',
but if you are not itching to comment, if your
skin is not crawling once in awhile, wishing to be
scratched...well, we may think something has gone awry.

Yes! We have close to exactly all the right questions,
the biggies...all laid out buffet style. An erratic
style at times will cause you to skip over this,
and digest a bit of that, there is so much from which to choose.

I can't say that all my questions are answered.
I can't say that I don't exist either, that's ridiculous!
Then again, it is time out of mind that we are talking about.

J. Krishnamurti would have us throw out 'words' per se,
of course he means only a part of the day...generally.
There are a lot of Masters who have written books
so methinks we can rule that rule out.
And if they haven't written, they have allowed
themselves to be quoted. Right?
In the Beginning was the Word?
Words are for describing experience in a shared way.
Experience comes first...obviously, the higher the better.

It very well could be that the very first conscious Master
who lived to tell the story may have had a little help from Nature's
own substances...at this time, I cannot rule it out, but
only as an impetus to spark the true urge...who knows?
I can't remember being there and my short-term is
liking this "only now" talk.
Just cellular, organic brain cells speaking to you
at the moment,
and more are expiring every second! So what?

Luvs, not Keith~

Dear Meike

In your comment # 41 to me, were you making some assumptions about my thoughts, or trying to read between lines? I ask because you brought up subjects I wasn't writing about.

To address the issues you raised:

I absolutely don't believe that I am the only one who can answer my questions. One of the first lessons I learned on my spiritual journey is that the answers are in the hands of something much more universal and pervasive than my own mind, the something I call God. My mind can tap into that source, and experience a flow of knowledge and energy from it. But I am God's student, I don't turn to myself to answer my own questions.

I wasn't asking others to share their experiences and struggles (although if they do so, I'll always read them with interest). I was using my own experiences to illustrate my personal beliefs, which I thought some might wonder about due to my list of questions.

The site you referenced (http://www.isitaboutsexblog.com/) -- lordy, it made me laugh to read the URL, and then to see that the site is about sexual questions. Where, why and how did sex enter the picture? While I love sex as much as most people do, in my comment #38, I was talking about the philosophy of consciousness, relative to spirituality and love in the context of the HQR project. Were you serious or teasing? I'm completely puzzled as to where that came from.

Here's what I was trying to say, and this time I'll be perfectly blunt, which will offend a few people, I'm sure, but at least it will be clear...

When this project started, I found it exciting to think of physics and spirituality being combined in a holistic schema, especially if some of the more difficult aspects of quantum physics could be integrated into some theory of everything by defining spirituality in a very universal and powerful manner.

As the project evolved, I often was frustrated by lack of defined terminology, and sloppy thinking in some of the threads. I held my peace, because HQR was an evolving idea. But when it was proposed to submit the theory for scientific review, I was dismayed, because I knew the fuzziness of the theory would allow it to be torn apart by the scientific communinity, and I like this theory very much. So I began to seach for and ask for definitions and clarifications. And I'm still on that path. That's what comment #38 was all about.

In my search, I found the work of consciousness philosophers, David Chalmers in particular, to be related to the issues of how we talk about consciousness and spirituality. I'm currently reading four Chalmers papers, which I plan to summarize briefly in a future comment.

In preparation for summarizing the papers, I'm trying to find out more about how the principals of this project think, about spirituality, love, spirit, and consciousness. It does no one any good if I summarize by presenting concepts and words that don't relate to the thoughts and understanding of the leaders of this project.

Dr. Chalmers gave me permission in an email to directly quote his papers, as long as the quotes aren't too long. Here is an excerpt of one of his papers, which I share so you can get a sense of what I'm reading:

From "What is the Unity of Conciousness" by Tim Bayne and David Chalmers, page 7...

. . . . . . . .

"...There is a close empirical connection between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness. It is arguable that the two almost always go together empirically: when a state is phenomenally conscious, it is access-conscious, and vice versa. That is, when there is something like it is to be in a state, a subject can usually report the cntents of the state and use it to directly guide reasoning and behavior. And when a subject can report the contents of a state and use it to directly guide reasoning and behavior, there is somethink like it is to be in that state. So when I am phenomenally conscious of the red book, I am access-conscious of it, and vice versa."

"Despite this empirical connectionm, there is plausibly a conceptual distinction between access conciousness and phenomenal conciousness..."

. . . . . . . .

If you click on my name, you can go to the work blog I set up, where I'm working through what I find in these papers so I can summarize them. On the right side is a link to Chalmers' work. As I write this comment, the site with his papers is down. If you're interested in reading his stuff, you might try it a little later.

The reason I'm reading this is: Our wrestling with what the universe is all about is an aspect of human consciousness, and what we experience as spirituality and love are also aspects of human conciousness. Human consciousness is involved with everything we measure, see, think and theorize about. Yet we have a sense that there are supra aspects of the universe, that are as valid and real as we are. Where does our consciousness stop and supra-consciousness start? Are they aspects of each other, or not? And so on. Is supra conciousness the same as pure love? Is it the same as universal spirituality?

So these are the things I was thinking of when I wrote #38.

As you can see, there's a gulf between what I was saying, and what you thought I was saying. If a little confusion can result from a short comment on a blog, imagine how much serious confusion can result when a complex theory is presented for scientific review. This is why it's so important to be clear about communicating, and why I think it's important for the HQR project to be lucid in the expression of its concepts.

love, Heath

Kate,

Hopefully your daughter and business are both doing well now! I read over your business website and it was most interesting.

Patzi

Mieke, you are always so clear and helpful(Hug)thankyou!! yes, it makes sense(even to me) but, without the same experience of "nowness" I am afraid I am left to wander life blindly(literally)for gods will, in what I do, or fail to do; is greater than my own at present.

Heather--the blog Mieke provided is not just a sextalkblog!! The women are amazingly articulate, brilliant, intelligent sex therapists. The topics range from Osho to Tao, and I find the blog a resourceful "get to know yourself" kind of facility... which goes beyond the title of the blog.. way beyond!!

Kate--good to see you
Patzi--good to see you as well

Keith--you have come a long way(gentle smiles)

DK--you are a gentle giant

with loving kindness,
North

Dear North

The content has nothing to do with my comment # 38, wouldn't you agree?

love, Heath

Dear Heather.. I tend to disagree; as I pointed out to you, the blog Mieke suggested take a peep at, answers many, many of your #38-Q's.. but, I suppose it would take time for you to surf the site, to find those answers? It has been up for a long time, therefore the info there, is priceless, is being turned into India's first blog-book...I find it an invaluable source of self-realizing techniques, articles, topics and discussions.

with loving kindess,
North

Avtar,

[I could see the Whole fragmenting into parts.]

Just picture this:

I was sitting as a whole. Than I had to move my arm to get hold of the newspaper and had to use my eyes to read the newspaper.

Have I fragmented my whole into parts?

So, if you have really understood the whole and its working you will find that the whole is doing fine everywhere, in each part, and is NOT BEING FRAGMENTED.

Similarly, relativity theory is only one of the two ways in terms of science to describe the whole fully. And that too if it is fully completed, in which case it will rather embrace in its fold quantum theory and its pending explanations rather than exclude it. Similarly, Quantum theory is the other way and when fully understood it will include relativity theory rather than negate it. There is no large-scale matter which does not include small-scale matter and there is no small-scale matter which does not add up to large-scale matter. Relativity theory begins from large scale but ultimately must be including small scale even though now it may not be complete enough to do so and vice versa for quantum theory.

He who understands whole fully must have a balanced view.

Computing too is a part of the working of the whole just as mental work is part of the working my whole being. When you will transcend mind it will not mean that now you will just eliminate it from your being but only that now you will use it rather than be used by it. Same goes for computing.

Remember, the spiritual master Krishana whom you mentioned in your previous thread to me said "What has happened, is happening, will happen is all for the good of mankind." So is computing here. You say it will hinder us from realizing our One consciosness I say it will leave us free enough to really work on that. Remember, we invented cars, aeroplanes and since then we are free to utilize our energies on so may other advanced things rather than spend them on reaching here or there in days and months...

Harb

I fuly endorse Mieke and North's views about the blog isitaboutsexblog.com. It embraces spirituality and hence the related questions to the highest.

Harb

Dear Harb

I agree that the quality of the blog's content is good.

Dear North

I believe you misread my questions and/or intent in #38. If you read #38 again and my intent is still not clear, you may want to read #52.

love, Heath

Granted Heather; but, all I was saying is.. the blog Mieke suggested is more than it's title; and has a vast variety of spiritual insight, blended very well with it's mandate.

Contributors there, have so much to offer any visitor Osho,Tao, social issues, gender discussion.. it's a great blog.

I really wasnt interpretting anything you said in 38 or 52... just made an observation on Mieke's suggested blog to puruse...as a good course.

no need to take this