Take this, learn and understand!!!

I have great news. I have been researching, collaborating, doing experiments, and otherwise scientifically studying consciousness, cosmology, religion & spirituality, mind/mental parapsycology and psychoanalyses. A wide variety of fields and topics, that tie into consciousness, reality, scientific truths and the universe/world that we live in. Yesterday, I found two great articles that I am going to post. I want the reader to understand, via my dissection and discussion of the information in the articles, a main theory I have concerning my studies and research.

‘Biocentrism’: How life creates the universe
Authors say cosmology misses the big picture unless it includes biology

In the past few decades, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that goes far beyond anything we could have imagined. A more accurate understanding of the world requires that we consider it biologically centered. It’s a simple but amazing concept that Biocentrism attempts to clarify: Life creates the universe, instead of the other way around. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several long-held puzzles. This new model — putting observers firmly into the equation — is called biocentrism. Its necessity is driven in part by the ongoing attempts to create an overarching view, a theory of everything.

Could the long-sought Theory of Everything be merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed? Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we are close to understanding the “Big Bang” rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: We are creating them. It is the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that science has not confronted the one thing that is at once most familiar and most mysterious — consciousness. As Emerson wrote in “Experience,” an essay that confronted the facile positivism of his age: “We have learned that we do not see directly, but medially, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are, or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subject-lenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.”

For several centuries, starting roughly with the Renaissance, a single mindset about the construct of the cosmos has dominated scientific thought. This model has brought us untold insights into the nature of the universe, and countless applications that have transformed every aspect of our lives. But this model — failing us now in a myriad of ways — may be reaching the end of its useful life.

The old model proposes that the universe was until rather recently a lifeless collection of particles bouncing against each other, and obeying predetermined rules that were mysterious in their origin. There are many problems with the current paradigm — some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, since its initial arising is still a scientifically unknown process. The bigger problem is that life contains consciousness, which, to say the least, is poorly understood.

Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; it’s a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science — which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, what’s worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a problem.

But even putting aside the life-and-consciousness issues, the current model leaves much to be desired when it comes to explaining the fundamentals of our universe. The cosmos sprang out of nothingness 13.7 billion years ago, in a titanic event facetiously labeled the Big Bang. We don’t begin to understand where the big bang came from even if we continually tinker with the details. Indeed, every theorist realizes in his bones that you can never get something from nothing, and that the Big Bang is no explanation at all for the origins of everything, but merely, at best, the partial description of a single event in a continuum that is probably timeless.
It’s one thing to acknowledge that theoretical physicists are brilliant people even if they do tend to drip food on themselves at buffets. But at some point, virtually everyone has thought, or at least felt: This really does not work. This does not explain anything fundamental, not really.

Then, too, in the last few decades there has been considerable discussion of a basic paradox in the construction of the universe. Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? These fundamental constants of the universe — constants that are not predicted by any theory — all seem to be carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life and consciousness. We have absolutely no reasonable explanation for this.

The bottom-line issue: What is the nature of this thing we call reality, the universe as a whole?

This, consciousness, is not a small item. It is not like anything else. Indeed, it is nothing like anything else. Consciousness is awareness, or perception, which in an utter mystery has somehow arisen from molecules and goo. How did inert, random bits of carbon ever morph into that Japanese guy who always wins the hot dog eating contest?
In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, its parameters, and what is really going on, requires an understanding of how the observer — our presence — plays a role.

At first this may seem impossibly difficult, since much of awareness or consciousness and certainly its origins are still mysterious. But as we shall see, we can use what we know, and what we are increasingly discovering, to formulate models of the cosmos that make sense of things for the first time.

My notes: So the question is, how did the Cosmo's, the celestial and universe at large come to be? Next, how after it came to be, and from what must be answered, how did life and consciousness come to be? We usually rely on science to tell us our answers, but....

Undeniably it is the biological creature that makes the observations and creates the theories. Our entire education system in all disciplines, the construction of our language, revolve around a bottom-line mindset that assumes a separate universe “out there” into which we have each individually arrived on a very temporary basis.


However, starting in the 1920s, the results of experiments have shown just the opposite. The observer critically influences the outcome. An electron turns out to be both a particle and a wave but how and, more importantly, where such a particle will be located remains dependent upon the very act of observation. This is perhaps most vivid in the famous two-hole experiment, which has been performed so many times, with so many variations, it’s conclusively proven that if one “watches” a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and creates solid-looking hits behind the individual slits on the final barrier that measures the impacts. Like a tiny bullet, it logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the trajectory of the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes at the same time.

Meaning: Something observed vs unobserved, the action and event is different based on the observer/it being observed. Many times we discuss how one event can be seen very differently by two people, yet it was the same event. This also applied to science, when something is viewed it seems one way, and when not viewed a completely different event/actions take place. Thus the viewer must have something to do with the event/actions. Would there be any event at all were it not viewed? Or perhaps the same event?

Since then, the list of paradoxes and intractable problems has continued to grow, starting with those accompanying the Big Bang (for instance, how could the entire universe — indeed, the laws of nature themselves — pop out of nothingness?) to experiments during the past decade that show separate particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances — as if they’re endowed with a kind of ESP.

AhHA! So they have proven that particles, energy, have ESP!!! The ability to communicate from a distance, the ability to affect each other though no "contact" is had. What degree is it to say that our consciousnesses cannot do the same? Effect each other, communicate, via a distance? Something we would have a hard time proving or disproving as there is no matter in consciousness or thought. Probably even, no awareness that one is even communicating or being effected by ESP.

It works with light, too: When born-together pairs of photons are created in a special kind of crystal, observing one member instantly influences the behavior the other — even if they are separated by enormous distances.

They are intimately linked in a manner suggesting there’s no space between them, and no time influencing their behavior.
No time!!! No space!!!
These and similar experiments have befuddled scientists for decades.
So let's think about this. Let's take the seemingly undeniable logic that your kitchen is always present, its contents assuming all their familiar shapes and colors whether or not you are in it. The earth, your road, your home, is built and can be even seen from space, with the same likeness again and again. It must be concrete matter, right?
Wrong!!!!
Consider: The shapes, colors, and forms known as your kitchen are seen as they are solely because photons of light from the overhead bulb bounce off the various objects and then interact with your brain through a complex set of retinal and neural intermediaries. But on its own, light does not have any color, nor any brightness, nor any visual characteristics at all. It’s merely an electrical and magnetic phenomenon. So while you may think that the kitchen as you remember it was “there” in your absence, the unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you can imagine could be present when a consciousness is not interacting.


Quantum physics comes to a similar conclusion. At night you click off the lights and leave for the bedroom. Of course the kitchen is there, unseen, all through the night. Right?
WRONG!
But, in fact, the refrigerator, stove and everything else are composed of a shimmering swarm of matter/energy. The results of quantum physics, such as the two-slit experiment, tell us that not a single one of those subatomic particles actually occupies a definite place.
The fridge and all concrete matter's actually makeup, is of tiny atoms, tiny particles that float in space. Our mind is programmed to "see" the fridge as a closed object, when in fact it, nor anything else made up of matter is!!!
Rather, the particles exist as a range of possibilities — as waves of probability — as the German physicist Max Born demonstrated back in 1926. They are statistical predictions — nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, nothing is there! If they are not being observed, they cannot be thought of as having any real existence — either duration or a position in space. It is only in the presence of an observer — that is, when you go back in to get a drink of water — that the mind sets the scaffolding of these particles in place. Until it actually lays down the threads (somewhere in the haze of probabilities that represent the object’s range of possible values) they cannot be thought of as being either here or there, or having an actual position, a physical reality.

Indeed, it is here that biocentrism suggests a very different view of reality. Most people, in and out of the sciences, imagine the external world to exist on its own, with an appearance that more-or-less resembles what we ourselves see. Human or animal eyes, according to this view, are merely clear windows that accurately let in the world. If our personal window ceases to exist, as in death, or is painted black and opaque, as in blindness, that does not in any way alter the continued existence of the external reality or its supposed “actual” appearance. A tree is still there, the moon still shines, whether or not we are cognizing them. They have an independent existence. True, a dog may see an autumn maple solely in shades of gray, and an eagle may perceive much greater detail among its leaves, but most creatures basically apprehend the same visually real object, which persists even if no eyes were upon it.

This “Is it really there?” issue is ancient, and of course predates biocentrism. Biocentrism, however, explains why one view and not the other may be correct. The converse is equally true: Once one fully understands that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence, the rest more or less falls into place.
So, with biocentrism, it is the viewer and his/her consciousness that creates this reality, the universe, and all that is it in. It is because of our ability to "see" and perceive, to know and consciously be aware of space, time, matter, etc... that creates this place that we know as the kitchen, the street, the town, the earth, outterspace and the universe. Our consciousness creates it, not the other way around of it being here for millions of years and creating us!!!!!


So, Where is the universe?And exactly where is that fridge? Where is the universe even located? Start with everything that is currently being perceived — the page you are looking at, for example. Language and custom say that it all lies outside us in the external world. Yet we’ve already seen that nothing can be perceived that is not already interacting with our consciousness. Since the perceived images are experientially real and not imaginary, it must be physically happening in some location. Human physiology texts answer this without ambiguity. Although the eye and retina gather photons that deliver their payloads of bits of the electromagnetic force, these are channeled through heavy-duty cables straight back until the actual perception of images themselves physically occur in the back of the brain, augmented by other nearby locations, in special sections that are as vast and labyrinthine as the hallways of the Milky Way. This, according to human physiology texts, is where the actual colors, shapes, and movement “happen.” This is where they are perceived or cognized.

If you try to consciously access that luminous, energy-filled, visual part of the brain, it’s easy. You’re already effortlessly perceiving it with every glance you take. Custom says that what we see is “out there,” outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in terms of language and utility, as in “please pass the butter that’s over there.” But make no mistake: The butter itself exists only within the mind. It is the only place visual (and tactile and olfactory) images are perceived and hence located. Explained in the language of biology, the brain turns impulses from our senses into an order and a sequence. As photons of light bounce off the butter, various combinations of wavelengths enter our eye and deliver the force to trillions of atoms arranged into an exquisite design of cells that rapidly fire in permutations too vast for any computer to calculate. Then, in the brain, this information, which as we previously saw has no color by itself, appears as a yellow block of butter. Even its smell and texture are experienced in the mind alone. The “butter” is not “out there” except by the convention of language. The same is true for all perceived objects, including the brain, cells, and even the electromagnetic events we detect with our instruments.


Some may imagine that there are two worlds, one “out there” and a separate one inside the skull. But the “two worlds” model is a myth. As we have seen, only one visual reality is extant; it is the one that requires consciousness in order to manifest. As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

So, with what they have learned, consciousness again creates this reality. It does not exhist outside the mind. It is the mind and all it's biological parts that show us a physical visual sensatory world to interact with, when in fact, no such world is there. Thus, when one looses consciousness---true death would happen. No world we exist for the organism to interact with, which is why all organic, even some inorganic, organisms have consciousness; and that after "death" on this earth most psychics say a person continues to live consciously, with their consciousness.



In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell proposed an experiment that could show if separate particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances. First it is necessary to create two bits of matter or light that share the same “wave function” using a special kind of crystal (so-called “entangled particles”). Now, since quantum theory tells us that everything in nature has a particle nature and a wave nature, and that the object’s behavior exists only as probabilities, no small object actually assumes a particular place or motion until its “wave function” collapses. What accomplishes this collapse? Messing with it in any way. Hitting it with a bit of light in order to “take its picture” would instantly do the job. But it became increasingly clear that any possible way the experimenter could “take a look” at the object would collapse the wave function. As more sophisticated experiments were devised it became obvious that mere knowledge in the experimenter’s mind is sufficient to cause the wave function to collapse.
That was freaky, but it got worse. If the wave function of an entangled particle collapses, so will the other’s — even if they are separated by the width of the universe. This means that if one particle is observed to have an “up spin” the act of observation causes the other to instantly go from being a mere probability wave to an actual particle with the opposite spin. They are intimately linked, and in a way that acts as if there’s no space between them, and no time influencing their behavior. Experiments from 1997 to 2007 have shown that this is indeed the case, as if tiny objects created together are endowed with a kind of ESP. And that the entities we observe are floating in a field — a field of mind, biocentrism maintains — that is not limited by the external spacetime Einstein theorized a century ago. Thanks to Einstein’s demonstrations that no “information” can travel faster than light, it was assumed that if observers are sufficiently far apart, a measurement by one has no effect on the measurement by the other.
Theories that are now finished for keeps.


OK. A lot of information. I know. But we must dissect this, and pin down the main points. So, we've learned about consciousness and reality, even the existance of matter, material objects in our environment, and how they exist because of our consciousness. What was next, is ESP, and how particles, the make up of everything in the universe, can communicate across huge distances. How they are effect by us, the viewer, and each other, even if one is in one universe and another in another universe!!! What is after that is experiments and studies that have proven that time and space can and is transcended, passed by, in this reality. That neither time nor space matter when it comes to information communicated or cause and effect. See, imagine, as if this whole world was in your mind!!! Your mind held everything, the whole cosmo's, and thus anything that exhisted was not independent, but rather connected wholy on your one mental plane!!! All time and space would be traversable, information would be able to pass through anything, and everything would be effected by your mind, or consciousness at large!!! This totally ties into the theory of a mind at large, one unconscious database that all human's share, and the ability to have parapsycology powers such as ESP, telepathy, telekenesis, etc!!!! Even time travel would be totally plausible, because your mind already has everything from the past and future connected, this one place holds multiple space and time is irrelevant. Sort to speak...