Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Information is Mass

If energy is equated to information just as it is equated to mass, then information and mass must also be equated with each other. This means that mass arises through the same process that we find to be the cause of information, which is through meaningfully ordered associations. Therefore, mass arises through the meaningfully ordered associations between the constituent parts.

Photons and certain other fundamental particles have no mass, but through their interactions with each other, mass arises. When a number of massless particles come together and interact, information is created, as is mass. When they fall into an equilibrious state, where actions are repeated as the particles vibrate together in their ordered manner, the information created (the mass) is stable and maintains its expression as a form, such as a proton, an atom, a molecule, or whatever.

We can consider this in terms of numbers and the mathematical operations that can be performed on them. For instance, the base unit of 1 can be equated with zero mass, and regarded as expressing no information because it is no different than any other base unit. There is also the counterpart of –1’s in the universe that represent antimatter, but in the universe we experience, these do not affect our normal observations, and so do not need to be figured into our discussion. We can conceive of the universe filled with individual 1’s flying around (as well as –1’s). When the 1’s come together in certain ways, they add up to larger units, such as 2’s , 3’s, and 4’s. These conglomerations, while they are stabilized by their unitary order, express information. Thus, units of simple 3’s and 4’s that hold together offer a means for proto-matter to become established, bearing the slightest amount of mass/information. These simple units of proto-matter are stable to a degree, but not stable enough for them to hold together well, and they can easily fall apart again with the slightest disturbance. However, certain of these units, like certain number values, fit nicely together in various ways to build into still larger ‘prime’ units, which are equivalent to the prime numbers in our numerical system. A number such as 24 is built from the components of it’s prime set (2,2,3,3), and so it’s material equivalent can arise whenever the proto-matter of two 2’s and two 3’s come together and stabilize. This is more likely to happen than for a number such as 4620 (2,2,3,5,7,11), because the probability of the units of it’s prime set coming together and stabilizing are not as great. The higher the number we are dealing with, the less chance that it will form out of its necessary component units. Thus, we see a greater amount of the baser elements of matter, such as hydrogen and helium, than we do those rare elements at the high end of the periodic table.

Of course, the smallest amounts of mass that we understand to exist are comprised of units that are smaller than anything we might observe with our measuring devices, and we therefore only understand mass/energy values down to a certain minimum that does not reveal the smaller values of proto-matter. It is only when this proto-matter comes together to form larger stabilized units that we are able to recognize it as a substance (energy/mass/information).

The base units that we understand to be the minimum values of energy (quanta) are themselves divisible even further, but we do not recognize those smaller divisions because we think in terms of the scale of observation that we are currently at, which is predominated by the smallest units we can recognize and understand. But these quantum units we recognize may just be composites of the more primal units of proto-matter which is itself beyond our level of recognition. The information expressed by proto-matter is taken for granted as the underlying ground in which the universe plays out. This proto-matter is so subtle in its formations that it can only be recognized as fundamental aspects such as time and space, which are qualities that are reflected as information but have no apparent substance. Scientists have for the most part taken such fundamental qualities of our universe for granted, and are only now attempting to consider how they might be described as arising in their own right. However, information, mass, or energy can only be recognized when it stands out from this background and can be measured against it. There is nothing that can be recognized without it being defined, at least in part, in terms of spatial and temporal relationships, and anything that might exist in all places and at all times is beyond observability. Thus, although the value of 1 is the basis for all greater whole numbers, as long as we can only recognize multiples of 2’s or 3’s or even 12’s, we will never recognize anything of a subtler nature.

Think of this in terms of ice in relation to water. An ice cube in a glass of water is of the same substance as the water it floats in, except for the ordered configuration of its molecular parts in relation to the baser configuration of the ordinary water that it is immersed in. We recognize the cube as separate and different from the fluid water only because we gain greater information from it than we do its water equivalent.

Experiments involving entangled particles have shown that the quantum states of all the particles within a system of coordinates are superposed so that it is not the property of a single particle that carries information, but rather the state of the system as a whole.1 This can be understood in a numerical sense with the simple addition of numbers that result in a value that is not carried in any of the numbers that were added together. By combining or ‘entangling’ the numbers in this way, we are emulating a system of coordinates with superposed quanta, where the quanta are the grouped 1’s that make up each number being added. Each of these composite numbers is a system in its own right.

Mass is reflected in the complexity of a system in terms of its constituent minimal parts. The greater the number of minimal parts, the greater the mass will be. These parts might be loosely configured and have a high volume, or they might be tightly configured and have a low volume. Information is contained in the order of these configurations, and the more complexity there is in that order, the more information can be derived from it.

Almost all of the mass of an atom is contained in its nucleus, where there is the most complexity. This complexity has become a new source of energy, and promises to be the source for much information as we come to understand the subatomic world more thoroughly.

1 Ervin Laszlo, Quantum Shift in the Global Brain: How the New Scientific Reality Can Change Us and Our World (2008) Inner traditions

Five Revelations in Quantum Physics

The first revelation of quantum mechanics that we will consider is that below the level of quantum particles, at a microcosmic scale of time and space that is less than that of Planck time (10-43 seconds) and Planck length (10-33 centimeters), the concepts of time and space are no longer in effect. At this sub-quantum level of reality, the energy that emerges into the simplest material forms of quanta is itself just a jittery, frothing sea of uncertainty. The dualistic opposites of our normal world, such as left and right, up and down, near and far, here and there, inside and outside, before and after, etc., do not apply. There is no sense of causality or order as we understand them on the larger scales we are more familiar with. Quantum particles pop in and out of existence in a seemingly chaotic and unpredictable manner, sometimes emerging long enough to interweave themselves into configurations that will exist for a while, but which eventually disintegrate back into a haze of uncertainty again.

Further, this frothing quantum sea of energy exists at every conceivable point in space, filling even the microcosmically huge distances between an atom’s tiny nucleus and the electrons that inhabit ‘orbits’ at its outer perimeters. This sub-quantum energy exists everywhere throughout the conceivable limits of space, being present at all points throughout. It is this underlying energetic field from which matter emerges in its physical, particulate form.

This underlying sea of ever emerging and vanishing quanta is commonly referred to as the quantum field or zero-point field. In this text, we will occasionally need to make the distinction between the underlying energy itself and the quantum units that arise out of it to form particles. For this reason the term ‘sub-quantum’ will be used to refer to the underlying energy itself, rather than to the quanta that form out of it. This is simply to help the reader clearly understand what is being discussed.

The second revelation of quantum mechanics is based on what is known as Bell’s Theorem, and is commonly referred to as quantum entanglement. This revelation dictates that two or more particles, once they become correlated through an interaction, will thereafter remain correlated no matter how far apart they become from one another in space. They seem to be integrated in a way that makes the spontaneous and immediate exchange of information between them possible, even if they happen to be at opposite ends of the universe. A change in any of the properties of one entangled particle will automatically and instantaneously cause a change in the corresponding property of all those particles entangled with it. Instantaneous long distance connections between physical objects are therefore not limited by spatial distance at the quantum level, and the interactions of subatomic particles that are continually occurring means that things are much more connected than they might seem at the human level of everyday perception.

The third important revelation gained from the study of quantum mechanics is that of wave/particle duality, which means that every quantum of energy, such as a photon or electron, has both a wave aspect and a particle aspect, rather than just a particle aspect (as was once commonly thought). Although scientists had always assumed matter to be purely particulate in form, the study of quantum mechanics eventually revealed that there is also a wave aspect to matter, and quanta can exist in one or the other state. Further research has revealed that the wave aspect of matter exists even when its corresponding particle aspect does not. A quantum of energy therefore exists primarily as a wave, but in certain instances – most specifically when it is being observed or measured – a quantum wave ‘collapse’ occurs, and its particulate form springs into existence. In its wave state, it can be considered as existing only as a potential particle, and as such has no definite location, being in all possible spatial locations at once. This potential, all-encompassing yet undefined location is referred to as the particle’s superposition. In quantum physics, this wave state is referred to as a probability wave, because until it temporarily collapses into a distinct and ‘solid’ particle, the location in which that particle will be located can only be defined as a statistical probability. It cannot be predicted with absolute certainty.

This is an effect of what is known in quantum physics as the Uncertainty Principle. This principle is based on the fact that predictions about the outcomes of quantum effects can only be statistical in nature and therefore cannot be determined with any great precision – these outcomes can only ever be determined as probabilities, not absolutes. Although all possible spatial locations are covered by the wave in its superposition, certain locations will have a higher degree of probability than others of being the eventual physical location. Some of these probabilities will be very high and some of these probabilities will be very low.

From the standpoint of the mathematical formulas that physicists rely upon to plot out the structure of reality, the determination of where a particle will finally be located rests on the complex interactions of so many variables that it can only ever be calculated to a certain degree of probability. However, we do not have to worry about mathematical formulas in order to understand that the underlying wave state of a quantum of energy is always permeating every point of space to one degree or another. When it collapses into its particle state, that quantum of energy can be thought to instantaneously condense into a single location to become a particle. The energy used by the particle, however, is essentially still connected to the entirety of its underlying sub-quantum source through its wave state. This is important in understanding the mechanics of quantum entanglement between particles, as outlined above.

The fourth revelation that quantum mechanics has given us can be referred to as the observer effect, which has been indisputably shown that the observer (or the act of taking a measurement) has a definite effect on what is observed. This is tied in with wave/particle duality, in that the observer causes the wave to collapse into a particle at one of its probable locations. This will obviously be of extreme importance in formulating a more accurate scientific model of reality than we currently have, because not only does it indicate that things are only definite when their observation forces the probabilities into one specific outcome, but it also indicates the more profound realization that mind affects matter. This revelation will likewise be important to keep in mind as our discussion progresses throughout this book.

The fifth and final revelation of quantum mechanics that is of importance to our discussion is that during the observation or measurement of a quantum particle, it is impossible to acquire information on more than one of its properties during that observation. This is another effect of the Uncertainty Principle. An example of this revelation is that it is not possible to measure both the momentum and the location of a particle with any degree of accuracy. It is possible to measure any one property, but to do so causes an immediate change in that particle, making all other properties uncertain. If we were to measure its momentum, for instance, this causes a change in its location in space.

All five of these revelations, which have been established through empirically controlled laboratory experiments, have each been accepted by the scientific community as indisputable characteristics of physical reality at the quantum scale of matter. Between these revelations, we can see that beneath the perceptible surface of things, the deeper levels of physical reality are very much different from what we could ever have expected them to be.

The rules of order that we understand and have relied on to predict and describe the physical events that occur at the perceptible scales of our everyday world do not apply at the quantum level, and a separate framework of understanding has slowly and tediously been forming, which scientists hope will eventually provide a complete and accurate description of events at this microcosmic scale. However, the very fact that two separate rules of order are required to define and describe these different scales of physicality suggests that the scientific framework is not whole, but is rather a patchwork of understandings that do not mesh as neatly as they should.

We should therefore give further consideration to these quantum revelations in order to better comprehend their significance in our ability to discern a deeper reality. A more encompassing description of reality will become further clarified as we discuss other relevant subjects in later chapters, but for the time being it is important to consider these five revelations further in order to gain a firm understanding of how things appear to be at the quantum level.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

The Greater Consciousness and Reality

The greater consciousness is splintered into innumerable faucets of being through which it is free to explore and express its own potential. These faucets are continually and simultaneously forming as expressions of mind, building upon themselves into creations of greater and greater organized complexity for greater and greater forms of experience.

The greater consciousness is the creative center from which all of reality arises. From this center has emerged the design of an ordered understanding.

There are many levels and variations of conscious beingness. For instance, human consciousness is a particular variation of being that is distinct from the consciousness of an animal. Similarly, different species of animals have variations in their states of consciousness. Plants are another variation of conscious being, much less complex than humans or animals. In turn, cellular, molecular, atomic, and subatomic structures are all variations of conscious being. Aside from these, there are other levels as well, which include planets, star systems, galaxies, universes, etc. Each variation exists at a certain level of consciousness, corresponding to its evolutionary complexity. Subatomic particles exist at a very low level, while atoms, molecules, cells, plants, insects and animals all exist at respectively higher levels. Consciousness is in its simplest form at the lowest level, and in its most complex at the highest level.

Each of these variations of consciousness stems from the same greater consciousness, of which they are an inherently part. They are all creative expressions of the greater consciousness and they have become manifest into being through the directed energy of mind. Remember that quantum physics has shown that the physical properties of matter are compelled to arise through the act of observation, and in this act, we are applying consciousness to our surroundings. The consciousness within the atoms and stars that gives them their life force and allows them to collapse into physical existence before us is initiated by our attention to them.

The simplest constructs of matter are established through the most elementary rules of order required. Once a construct has been created through the establishment of its expressive pattern, it is able to sustain itself without any further conscious attention applied, being carried by the automatic responses of the deeper subconscious. In this way, the rhythmic cycles that underlie all physical processes are established and a continuous interweaving of patterns is given expression in a multitude of forms.

Deeper Consciousness

Let us now consider the connective aspect of consciousness further. We only know and understand consciousness from within the limits of our own individual and isolated human experience of it. We perceive and think of our individual minds as completely separate and isolated from each other because we are unable to share our inner worlds in the same way that we share the outer world. And yet, in spite of this, we are still somehow able to find a common understanding between us regarding purely subjective, non-physical things, such as beauty and confusion. Although we all know what these things are, these understandings are not based on any clearly established rules of order and therefore cannot be defined in any quantitative terms. We do not always define these subjective things in quite the same way, so that where one person might see beauty, another might not. Nevertheless, we all have some conceptual formulation of what beauty is, or confusion, or whatever else, and these understandings seem to be mutual, at least in a general sense.

Where does this mutual understanding between us come from? How can we know that we understand these things in the same relative way? To understand this, we should realize that although we may appear to be separate and isolated individuals, both mentally and physically, this is not really the case at all.

In a physical sense, we are interconnected with our environment and constantly exchanging energy with it. At the level of normal awareness, we do this whenever we breathe, as well as when we pass food and liquids through our systems for nourishment. If we consider our physical bodies at the subatomic level, we see that we are actually indistinguishable and inseparable from our environment. At this microcosmic level, lines of distinction break down and form loses substance. Absolutes disappear and only probabilities are certain. Matter itself disappears into pure energetic expression. There is no definite point where the material that makes up our bodies stops and the environment begins. The molecules that make up the cells of our bodies are constantly breaking down and losing atoms to the environment while other cells are concurrently forming to replace them, being replenished by atoms from our environment. In fact, all of the individual atoms that make up our bodies will be replaced over time, so that the body we have at twenty will be an entirely different one by the time we are thirty.

In regards to our mental separation from one another, we only appear to be completely isolated from each other in our thoughts and feelings. We can only share these experiences indirectly by describing them through speech, writing, etc., but these can never communicate our inner experiences precisely. We seem to be somewhat trapped within our own private worlds where our thoughts and perceptions are unlike anyone else’s, and unable to be directly shared with anyone else. But there is a connective link between our individual minds that is sometimes experienced in certain situations and to such a degree that when we do experience it we are taken aback, and can only conclude that something outside of our common understanding has taken place. These are moments where we feel that something paranormal has occurred, and these moments, although still quite rare, are common enough that we can give them credence as evidence that there is a mental connectivity between us.

The more common subjective experiences of our separate minds seem to be quite similar in many ways, and it is through these similarities that we find a certain degree of mental connectivity between us. In spite of this, however, we do not appear to be anything other than individual instances of consciousness taking part in a common physical reality. This separation between us is an illusion, however, and at a very deep level of consciousness we are connected to each other and everything else. In fact, consciousness exists in every physical form that we perceive, every sound that we hear, every scent that we smell, every flavor that we taste, and every touch that we feel. It is consciousness that causes matter to appear to manifest as physical reality before us. This all-permeating consciousness is even reflected in the very order and stability that allows our universe to continue to exist. All life forms and all inanimate things are essentially the faucets of one great, unified consciousness, existing as minor reflections of its greater being.

This greater consciousness encompasses all consciousness within this sphere of reality that we all share together. It is in all things, giving them sustenance through its energy of thought. Humans and all other ‘conscious’ beings, which include all plants and animals, as well as all atoms, molecules, rocks, clouds, stars, etc., arise as concentrations of the multi-focused, simultaneously occurring attentions of this greater consciousness. In the mechanistic terms of the physical sciences, what we call energy and equate with mass is also equated with conscious energy. The greater consciousness is therefore the sum of all the energy in our universe. But it is more than just this, because it also encompasses the subjective side of reality as well.

We experience both an outer and an inner reality, one objective and quantifiable, the other subjective and non-quantifiable. The outer reality, as we have already described, arises as a reflection of our collective thoughts and beliefs, and actually emerges from the subconscious level of mind, although this does not appear so to our senses. It is through our subconscious that we connect to each other and all the rest of reality, and this can be evidenced by the fact that telepathic reception and clairvoyant impressions often occur when the conscious mind is relaxed, allowing the subconscious to predominate mental activity.

The living human mind ranges between full waking consciousness and deep comatose sleep. When we are fully alive and experiencing our physical world with a high degree of connective interaction with it, we are at the peak level of our consciousness. When we sleep, we sink out of this conscious awareness and our brain processes that involve normal reasoning and logical thinking – the underlying framework that we use to interpret our sensory input – are more or less shut off, allowing a more direct connection to the subconscious. This is where the content of our dreams originate. The subconscious mind is also the channel for psychic impressions or sources of knowledge that are not always available otherwise. Much of what we experience as random mental impressions when we are drifting off to sleep, and the wisps of dreams that we recall upon waking, are impressions created by the subconscious. Although they may seem quite illogical and meaningless to our conscious minds, they often reflect a level of reality that seems to relate to deeper understandings and issues than our normal waking lives are usually concerned with, or should be concerned with.

Upon the death of our physical bodies, we slip deeper and deeper into this subconscious state, first letting go of our conscious connection to the outside world, then to the inner world, before fading out completely. Where do we go?

Many are led to believe that when our bodies die, so does our consciousness. This belief is caused by too much faith in the mechanistic view of science and little faith in a higher purpose. Other belief systems are not so limiting in the extent that they give meaning to consciousness, life, and reality itself. Until scientific thought replaced religious doctrine, our part in the world was at least important in the scheme of things, if not central to its meaning and purpose. Science has avoided any consideration of reality that would involve any such meaning and purpose to life forms other than to fulfill a part of a continuing process of physical existence for its own sake. We are supposed to believe that we only live for the sake of existing and to do our part to keep the cycle going, and that’s it. According to the scientific framework, life itself arose by purely random and unplanned physical events, and consciousness is said to be nothing more than an effect that arises when matter reaches a certain level of complexity. But is this to be believed?

The problem with this explanation is that it does not have any supporting evidence at all that would show that life arises out of random physical events, or that consciousness arises due to complexity. These are baseless claims that can serve no purpose other than to devalue life in general. Since science is self-limiting and cannot deal with anything other than external, objective events that occur in a physical sense, it is inadequate to rely on it if we are to consider anything beyond the physical domain. Science can offer the mechanics, but never the meaning.

Meaning is the subjective element of an experience or event. It is not inherent in the event itself, but only arises through the experiencer of that event. It arises from consciousness, not material substance. Meaning, being subjective, can be different for each of us, but there are those things that have the same meaning for all of us. We share a sense of reality based on meaning, expressed through the order that underlies that reality. The order itself is not physical, nor does it provide any meaning in itself. The meaning of this order, and of everything that arises through it as our reality, comes from a source that lies outside of normal awareness. This source had to exist before any sort of order could begin to form the physical world, and such order, being purely subjective in nature, was a reflection of mind.

We can see that from a scientific perspective, meaning is limited to describing physical processes, based on the laws of physics. This type of meaning, however, falls short of describing or defining anything beyond those laws. Science does not even attempt to address the question of the meaning of reality. It explains the history of the universe in terms of physical processes, but in doing so, describes it as originating from a state that lies outside of the physical laws that govern it. This prior state is described as a timeless, dimensionless point of nothingness, a ‘singularity’. From this conceptual singularity, science can describe the unfolding of energetic forces and the complex development of physical evolution that has culminated into today’s planets, stars, and galaxies. They claim that the universe continues to expand from an initial Big Bang event because distant galaxies are seen to be moving away from us. However, no explanation can be given regarding what space is expanding into, and we are left with a similar problem as we have with explaining a singularity.

No meaning or purpose can be ascertained to explain the universe’s existence as long as it is considered on its own. To derive any meaning, it must be understood beyond just itself, as part of or in relation to something greater. Science cannot explain where the originating singularity came from, nor can it explain what the universe is supposed to be expanding into.

These two conceptual extremes that mark the limits of physical reality reflect the essence of mind or consciousness as we are describing it here. The directive force behind the birth of our universe from a singularity is equivalent to pure focused consciousness. The background for this emerging reality is the subconscious mind that reflects back to us the expressions of conscious thought. The greater consciousness encompasses all of this, existing within all material manifestations, expressing itself through the directed energy of thought. The greater consciousness can direct its energies into separate creative faucets, which in some cases arise as living forms. These separate conscious beings are only digressions of the ultimate beingness of this greater consciousness. We appear to be separate instances of consciousness, but this is an illusion that is necessary to the type of experience that we are involved in. At a deeper level of mind, humans are connected together by the meaning that underlies this type of experience. We have accepted this meaning in terms of an understanding that was established prior to our involvement in this reality we share, before we came to be born into it. Each of us, deep within the core of our being, is part of the same conscious force that is involved in sustaining the order and structure of this reality.

To understand our connection to each other and to everything else through the depths of our subconscious minds, and to more easily conceptualize the greater consciousness that underlies manifest reality, we should give further consideration to the subconscious mind and its place in our experiences.

Qualities and Quantities

Quality must come before quantity. If we have a number of items, we have a specific quantity. What distinguishes them as a quantity, however? There must be certain qualitative factors that are present already that define them as individual items. These qualities are inherent in each separate item within a quantity of items, and each item is categorized as one unit as long as it contains those defining qualifiers. Each item, of course, may have other unique qualities about it that the other items don’t have, but within the qualifying categories, they can all still be considered as ‘similar/separate’ quantities.

For there to be something, anything at all, there must be a distinction between what it is and what it is not. This distinction is initially a purely qualitative one, rather than a quantitative one, and only gains quantitative form when it becomes measurable within a predetermined rule of order. To measure something we must have something to measure it against, in order to find the similarities and differences that distinguish it from anything else. The more qualities we can look for and differentiate between in something, the more defined it becomes. When certain combinations of qualitative definitions are repeatedly found, we come to conceive of them as similar units, and this allows quantitative understanding to arise. This understanding encourages us to perceive much of reality in objective form, as absolutes that we all accept and understand in specific terms. In this way, the world that arises around us is perceived to consist of physical structure that meets our shared sense of order, drawn out of subjective, qualitative concepts that have been firmly established at a deep level of consciousness from where it can manifest into those objective forms.

Consider for a moment how matter arises to our senses. At a fundamental level, matter is described as nothing more than atomic particles, and these particles are nothing more than quantities of energy (quanta) moving at such a high rate of vibration or oscillation that they seem to have solid, particulate form. Each individual vibration or oscillation of that energy has the same qualitative factors as any other of its vibrations or oscillations. In this way, each vibrational movement can itself be described as a separate quantitative unit that, through many repetitions that have the same qualities, becomes discernable, or at least describable, as a quantity – it becomes a particle. This objective quantity that is the particle, however, arises only because we have an already established qualitative order with which to understand it in quantitative terms. The smallest allowable unit of energy is defined by certain parameters, and these parameters are nothing more than qualities that scientists have discerned in them and rely on to distinguish them as separate units. But a minimal unit of energy, a quantum, has no real quantitative substance except for these qualitative distinctions. The energy is nothing in itself without the qualifying parameters, and these qualifiers are nothing more than qualities.

Connected Consciousness and the Connected Reality

Carl Jung coined the term ‘collective unconscious’ to describe the concept that all minds are connected and share a common ground at a level below conscious awareness. The concept itself was not actually his own, but comes from ancient Eastern belief systems, of which Jung was quite familiar. However, when he introduced the concept into Western thought, it made a lot of sense and the concept has caught on.

The idea of a deeply rooted connectedness between all minds is not merely a presumptuous desire that we might hold, but is in fact supported by an ever-increasing amount of evidence that cannot otherwise be explained in conventional terms. For instance, this concept of a connection between conscious minds is supported by certain psychic phenomena that have been continually evidenced all through our historic past. The scientific establishment, however, has always discredited such evidence of psychism (for possible reasons that we will get into later), and this has left the concept of a collective unconscious as appearing to be nothing more than a conceptual tool for psychiatrists and psychologists to use in dealing with their patients.

Recently, however, the concept of a collective connectivity, and psychism with it, has gained further evidence to support its reality through research into quantum mechanics. As we saw in the first chapter, it has been revealed in experiments that subatomic particles such as electrons and photons can instantaneously share information over great distances without any sort of physical connection existing between them. These findings break the known laws of classical physics, but replication of the experiments verify that the findings are nonetheless correct. This discovery caused Einstein a great deal of frustration, and he was never able to fully come to terms with it, struggling for the remainder of his life to understand how it could be possible within the parameters of physical laws as he understood them.

The problem for Einstein was caused by his belief that it was impossible for objects to interact at a distance without some sort of connecting link between them, and certainly not at speeds faster than light. Even radio and television transmissions link the broadcasting station to a receiving unit through electromagnetic waves, which are limited to traveling at the speed of light. According to the scientific establishment, there is nothing in the known universe that can interact with a distant object instantaneously and without some sort of an intermediary link (they conveniently ignore the fact that gravity causes action at a distance, and that an ether is needed to explain gravity using Einstein’s rubber sheet analogy). This distant connectivity, or entanglement, is considered an anomaly, and physicists are still scratching their heads as they try to find an explanation for it in purely mechanical terms. To think that our minds might also be connected in this way is just too much for them to accept.

But why should they be so alarmed? Gravity apparently has an aspect of nonlocality about it, and it defies the speed of light in that its effects are instantaneous. Although Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was accepted as an explanation of gravitation that supposedly eliminated any problems of nonlocality, we have seen that this is false.

So, for the time being at least, let us accept that the current scientific framework is too limiting to describe reality beyond a certain point, being based on principles that are designed to only consider the objective, quantifiable aspects of that reality. Any understanding beyond that must involve a broader consideration that also encompasses the immeasurable, which leads us to the subjective, nonphysical abstractions that exist purely in the mental realm of consciousness.

Earlier we described reality in terms of the subconscious reflecting our collective thoughts back to us, and these affecting our perceptions. These perceptions are structured and understood through our collectively accepted sense of order. We think of this order as being absolute and having always existed, being the fundamental principles that hold the physical world together and allow it to exist. In the mechanistic understanding, these principles, which we know as the various laws of physics, are considered the most fundamental absolutes of physical reality. Through them, all physical expressions of matter occur.

Yet, none of these principles are themselves physical. They are purely subjective concepts, being structured out of qualities rather than quantities. From them, quantities can be derived, but they are not themselves comprised of any quantity. What caused these qualities to arise, and what assures their uniformity throughout the physical universe? The scientific framework cannot provide answers to these questions, and so they ignore them altogether. But they are significant questions, because they lead us to realize that something deeper than physical substance, even in its finest forms, must underlie reality.

The subjective nature of reality precedes its objective form. Subjectivity gives meaning, and meaning is order. Thus, the collective agreement to establish a common sense of order was meaningful in that it allowed processes to be reflected within it that, once uniformly accepted as absolutes, became actualized as Nature. This order provided a conceptual template in which ideas could begin to be expressed. Not only could they be expressed, however, but they could also be replicated and multiplied, giving rise to quantitative aspects of reality.

It might be helpful at this point to remember that all life forms – including ourselves – evolved from the same single point of origin, the same first conscious life force, and through replication and the slow process of evolution, we each carry within us the same underlying sense of order that we use to understand our reality. We are deeply habituated to thinking in terms of separateness, both between each other as well as between ourselves and the external world, and so we do not realize that this sense of order is actually within us rather than external to us. We see this order reflected in objective form, but it is nevertheless essentially subjective, and is therefore a qualitative aspect of mind.

In order to understand this better, we should consider the relationship between quality and quantity a little further.

A Problem with the Relativity of Time

According to Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, time slows down more and more as a moving object reaches closer to the speed of light, at which point time stops completely, mass becomes infinite, and space contracts to a point in the direction of travel (all points come closer together). Following this reasoning, it has been popularly suggested, and even supposedly proven, that if a spaceship were to leave Earth and travel out into space at near-light-speeds for a period of time before returning again, there would be a measurable time discrepancy between the crew on the ship and the people on Earth, with the crew having aged more slowly than the people on Earth. We will refer to this as scenario A, where we have only two points of reference to contend with – that of Earth and that of the spaceship. This scenario is often used in explaining the strangeness of spacetime as it is understood within the Einsteinian framework.1

There is a definite problem with this understanding, however, and this problem can be seen more clearly when we reconsider the basic premise to the theory of special relativity, which is that all things – including time – are relative. This means that the time differentiation between the spaceship and Earth must necessarily affect both the crew on the ship and the people on Earth equally, rather than just the crew, as is commonly understood, and which is reflected in our description of scenario A. What scientists seem to have completely ignored is that if we can say that the spaceship is moving away from Earth at near-light-speed, then we can just as well say that Earth is moving away from the spaceship at the same speed. What is moving is relative to the orientation of the observer, and so the observers on the spaceship and on Earth must be equally affected. In other words, if the crew on the spaceship is aging more slowly relative to the people on Earth, then the people on Earth must necessarily be aging more slowly relative to the crew on the ship. The effect will be relative, rather than applicable from only one of the two reference points.

We can see the problem even more clearly if we consider this expected time differentiation in a slightly more complex scenario involving three relative points in space, rather than just two.

In scenario B, imagine yourself to always be situated at a point that is exactly halfway between the Earth and the spaceship as the spaceship travels away from Earth at near-light-speed. You are moving in the same direction away from Earth in your own spaceship at half the speed of the first spaceship, and so both the Earth and the first spaceship are effectively moving away from you in opposite directions at equal speeds. Eventually, the first spaceship turns around and begins to head back to Earth, and you also head back at the same moment, continuing to remain at an equal distance between the Earth and the spaceship until all of you are safely together again.

In this scenario, who is getting older? For who does time slow down, and by how much? If we consider the outcome of this scenario from the standpoint of each reference point, we will begin to see the problem with the commonly accepted understanding of time displacement.

1) From the standpoint of the people on Earth, the crew on the first spaceship ages slowest, while you age faster than them but slower than the people on Earth, who have aged normally.

2) From the standpoint of the crew on the first spaceship, the people on Earth age slowest, while you age faster than them but slower than the crew of the first ship, who continue to age normally.

3) From your standpoint on the second spaceship, both the people on Earth and the crew on the first spaceship age equally slowly while you age normally.

Seen in this context, the people of Earth would see themselves as having aged the most and the crew of the first ship having aged the least. The crew on the first spaceship, however, would see themselves as having aged the most and the people of Earth the least. Both of these groups would agree, however, on how little you have aged. You, in turn, would see yourself as having aged the most and the people on Earth and the crew of the first ship having aged equally less. Confusing? Yes. Likely? No.

This shows that the common understanding of time displacement is obviously in error. In scenario A, the crew of a spaceship that is traveling at near-light-speed will not age more slowly than the people back on Earth. Both will age at the same rate no matter at what speeds the spaceship travels or for however long. Scenario B reveals this fact, and further consideration of the concept of relativity will reflect it as well.

The common understanding of time displacement is at fault because it does not take into account the fact that the movement between a spaceship and Earth (or any other two reference points) can be viewed from the opposite perspective (as in scenario A), with the Earth speeding away from the spaceship, rather than the other way around. In this view, the people on Earth can be said to be traveling at near-light-speed relative to the crew on the spaceship, and can thus be said to be aging more slowly than the crew.

The common understanding appears to be accurate only because we tend to think that Earth is somehow at a stationary point in space, and forget that it is actually moving at great speeds as it orbits the Sun, which in turn orbits the galaxy, which is itself cycling through its own course in space. In effect, nothing is grounded to a central or fixed point where time can be said to be ‘regular’, and by which all other points of time can be measured.

The experiments that have been used to try to prove time displacement (within the commonly accepted understanding) are also at fault. These experiments, such as the one performed by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating in 1971, involve two atomic clocks – one placed at a stationary location on Earth, the other placed on a jet that travels around the Earth at a high speed for a certain period of time. The clocks are synchronized at the start, and then compared after the travel time is concluded. Although the expected time displacement would be extremely slight, since nothing nearing light speed can be achieved and the displacement will be proportionately less, the results seem to reveal that displacement occurred. Or did it?

The problem with this experiment lies with the atomic clocks themselves. These clocks rely on the half-life of a radioactive material such as cesium for their precision, and are generally very reliable, but they do tend to show slight variance between each other. This is evidenced by the fact that the atomic clock used to keep global time (the clock we use to set all other clocks by) has had to be reset a number of times over the years. We must also remember that the reliability of these clocks is dependent on the probable statistics of the random decomposition of the radioactive material, which means that as we deal with smaller periods of time, greater chance of random fluctuation in the decomposition will occur, making displacement effects seem to appear between different clocks. An overzealous scientist may inadvertently misinterpret those displacements that tend to support favorable results. Also, there are possible effects that gravity may have on radioactive decomposition rates, which could effectively cause the clock in the lower gravity of the upper atmosphere to decompose at a different rate than one in a higher gravity. None of this seems to have been taken into consideration.

Further consideration of the misunderstanding that time displacement would be one-sided, as it is commonly understood, leads to the realization that if such one-sided displacement is accurate and time slows only for the crew on the spaceship (as in scenario A), then by the same line of reasoning, our moon and anything on it must be aging more slowly than we are, and we, in turn, are aging more slowly than our sun, which is itself aging more slowly than the center of our galaxy.

Apart from all of this, there is also a problem with the idea that mass becomes infinite when traveling at the speed of light, as Einstein’s theories propose. If photons acquire infinite mass, this would cause them to draw other matter to them due to their increased gravitational force. Not only that, but they would hit objects with the force of a freight train. There is also the question of how a photon can possibly be captured within the electron shells of an atom and suddenly stop, if photons have no intermediate velocities. There are undoubtedly answers to these questions, but they are inadvertently convoluted and based on other predetermined understandings that seem to support them, and in the process of this they effectively make this area of science into an arcane field of study, and this will persistently raise the need for further convolutions of understanding in the future as further problems within this framework are encountered.

Einstein based his theories on mathematics, and composed formulas such as the famous E=mc2 to define and describe physical reality in a way that was meant to accurately correspond to it. Theories are written first and tested for accuracy later, so Einstein was only able to assume that he was accounting for all the physical variables and constants relevant to describing reality in mathematical terms. The reliability of any such formula depends on whether it takes into account every relevant factor in expressing a physical event. The certainty that all possible factors regarding physical realty are already established, when expressing reality through mathematical formulas, can never be completely assured. This is because until that relevancy is actually known, the need for such a factor is absent, and its value is simply incorporated into one or more of the other factors involved.2 But how do we know there is a need for another factor if we are ignorant of its relevance? The simple truth is that we don’t. Only time can tell as a theory is tested for its accuracy. If a theory poses a paradox, as Einstein’s theory of relativity certainly does, then there must be a missing factor that needs to be accounted for. The paradox of time displacement, as explained by the theory of relativity, poses questions that suggest there are empty categories that need to be filled. At least so far as we are to believe that any part of the scientific framework is absolute, and accurately reflects an equally absolute physical reality.

Our consideration of science has primarily been to point out the actual frailty of its underlying framework of understanding. We have discussed only a few of the many problems within this framework, with our main intention being to show that physical reality does not exist a priori, already rendered absolute before consciousness was ever able to emerge to experience it.

We can see from our review of science that physical reality is not really as absolute as we generally perceive it to be. Aspects of it arise to meet our expectations, but at the same time, many of them remain elusive to perfect unified understanding. Still other aspects – the majority of them – are no more than beliefs, having never actually been witnessed by anyone other than the scientists who give us their definition of what they have measured or observed in their laboratories, or calculated on paper.

When a new level of understanding is reached and is solidly accepted collectively, even without any physical evidence to precede it, events tend towards fulfilling its actuality – at least for the collective. This is the causal force of mind at work, and it is behind Nature’s very form and function.

The high cabal of the scientific establishment either knows of the power of this directive force and is trying to keep it undercover while taking advantage of it for themselves to maintain control over the rest of us, or they don’t know this and are just floundering to retain the inaccurate scientific understanding they have so heavily staked their careers on. It may seem very unrealistic to the average reader at this point that a high cabal within the scientific community is intent on or even capable of misleading us to any extent and thereby limiting our understanding of ourselves and our world, but bear with this for the moment. There is much more to consider before any immediate conclusions should be drawn. It is important, however, to raise the issue early on regarding the possible suppression and control of such knowledge and power. A great deal of evidence exists to indicate that this is the case.

The builders of such megalithic structures as the Great Pyramid at Giza in Egypt and the mountain-peak city of Machu Picchu in Peru undoubtedly had a working knowledge of the directive force that consciousness has on physical reality. There is evidence to show that this knowledge originated from the Atlantean or Lemurian civilizations, and it was likely preserved as part of the esoteric wisdom of the secret schools that later arose in Egypt, Asia, and India. This would have undoubtedly been a closely guarded secret that only the highest ranking of the priesthood was privileged to possess. This directive power may have been only partially understood, and only through certain limited methods of application, such as divination practices and incantation rituals. But the fact remains that these ancient men of knowledge were capable of feats that we still cannot explain or duplicate with our modern understanding, and this suggests that there exists, or once existed, certain knowledge that defies our current scientific framework.


1 It is because of this apparent time discrepancy that it has been seriously considered as a possible way for us to travel through time, if we were able to move faster than the speed of light. However, because the speed of light is believed to be an unsurpassable barrier, it is believed that time travel is impossible, and even interstellar space travel is impractical due to the immense distances that would require years to traverse even at light-speeds.

2 In the case of the zero-point field, this extra quantum energy showed up in mathematical calculations but was subtracted out in order to make the calculations correct, until the meaningfulness of it was established and it became an important factor.

Gravitational Force

In considering science, we must realize that what it tells us is fact cannot always be explained, even within its own parameters of logical reasoning and understanding. This is to say that science, although it demands reasoned explanations that will fit into an already established order before it will accept a thing as being real, has often overlooked this requirement.

Let’s consider this in relation to gravity. This is something we all accept as real because we each experience it every day and cannot get around it without having to take a flight into space to escape its effect. Gravity was first scientifically considered by Sir Isaac Newton, who made certain observations regarding it that have since become the foundation for our understanding of classical physics. These observations have been integrated into our scientific framework and are so crucial to it that without them, the framework would fall apart. And yet, within that very framework, gravity sits precariously, still unable to be explained without raising further mysteries in the process, and even breaking certain established understandings that have been built into that framework.

The one contention that arises regarding gravity that has thrown our current scientific framework into question is that it seems to affect objects at a distance, which, except for the fact that quantum entanglement has fairly recently suggested otherwise, has always been deemed an impossibility. This has been the one aspect of gravity that has kept scientists from being able to explain it within the context of their established understanding. They have tried very hard to formulate an understanding that excludes such a possibility of action at a distance (otherwise known as nonlocality), but have so far failed.1

Einstein himself had to rely on the concept of an etheric substance that permeated space in order to explain gravity. In doing so, he effectively resorted to using a concept that had already been officially denounced by the scientific establishment not so many years earlier, but the fact that he did so has been obfuscated by his use of it never being referred to in terms of an ether. Einstein actually believed that an etheric substance must permeate the universe, and even stated that his Theory of General Relativity required it. In explaining gravity with his Theory of General Relativity, he described space as like a rubber sheet, with large masses such as planets being represented by marbles that are placed on the sheet. The marbles warp the sheet with their weight or mass, and the heavier ones attract the lighter ones that lie within the distortion of their warp.

This is an interesting analogy, but it requires that either there is some sort of etheric substance throughout the universe, or we are back to some other mysterious force playing on matter. The analogy of the rubber sheet and marbles is, of course, a two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional space, and we need to imagine that the rubber sheet is a thin slice out of a three-dimensional space. According to Einstein’s theory, space is warped by large masses just as the rubber sheet is, but the warping occurs in three dimensions rather than in two.

The analogy of the rubber sheet is commonly used to explain gravity in terms of Einstein’s theory, but the suggestion of the involvement of any sort of an etheric substance is rarely ever made. The analogy is accepted by most without them ever considering the need for an ether,

The belief that an ether permeating space was supposedly put to rest years ago after experiments were conducted that were meant to look for etheric drag caused by the Earth’s rotation. The most notable of these, which is assumed to have disproved the existence of an ether once and for all, was conducted in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, and has been appropriately named the Michelson/Morley experiment. This experiment involved the use of an interferometer, which is a device that measures the relative differences in the times that photons take to reach a certain point. The logical premise regarding the ether was that, because of the Earth’s movement through such an ether, both in regards to its spin and to its orbital rotation around the sun, there would be more drag against the ether on one side of the Earth than on the other, where the one side was moving through the ether faster than the other. The expectations of this experiment were that the ether would cause a noticeable difference in timing through its drag effect on photons traveling against the ether compared to those that were not. The interferometer was used to measure the relative speeds of the two parts of a photon beam that had been split, where each part was exposed to what was expected to be different degrees of etheric drag. The two parts of this photon beam were then measured by the interferometer, and if the timing was off, then an etheric drag existed, and therefore so did an ether. When no signs of any drag were detected through the methods applied, this was thought to confirm its nonexistence. Of course, at that time, the superfluid properties of matter were unheard of. It is now known, however, that under certain conditions, some substances cause little or no friction to objects moving through or against them.

To return to using the concept of an ether after the scientific establishment so thoroughly denounced it not so very long ago, we might assume that it would be very difficult for the scientific establishment to reverse its opinion and accept the idea once again. Perhaps it is because such an idea is an unstated requirement of nature in the eyes of such a great man as Albert Einstein that it has been accepted by the scientific establishment with virtually no contest and never an allusion to it as an ether. The important thing for them, really, is to have some sort of conceptual context in which to understand and explain gravity, and any useable context is better than none at all.

The idea of a universal ether is not really as unlikely a possibility as it has been made out to be in the past. In fact, there is evidence that such an etheric field exists at the quantum level. The quantum field pervades all points in space and consists of fluctuating energies of minute quanta that continually pop in and out of existence. This field is sometimes referred to as the zero-point field, because the energy continues to vibrate at absolute zero temperatures, where all other quantum movement above this baseline theoretically stops.

The mere presence of the quantum field may or may not in itself provide the force of gravitation. Nevertheless, it provides the etheric substance through which a force might act in an all-pervading manner. Using the concept of an ether allows us to keep most of our current scientific framework virtually intact, and the evidence that this quantum field of energy exists lends weight to the possibility of an etheric medium. At the very least, thinking in terms of there being an ether causes fewer problems than it solves.

It is interesting to note that the ether was supposedly disproved once and for all in 1887, and yet variations on its conceptual existence were still being entertained by the scientific establishment under other guises – particularly within Einstein’s theories – over the next thirty years or so until the quantum field theory was formulated in the 1920’s. This theory, of course, is effectively incorporating another variation of the same physical phenomena as was originally disproved. The fact that the concept itself had been existing for so long in the minds of men, and that it provided a necessary aspect to understanding physical reality, may have had more to do with the eventual manifestation of the quantum field than anything else. This is another example of necessity and expectation causing certain aspects of reality to arise, just as with the neutrino, Neptune, and the ice age.

Of course, getting back to the rubber sheet analogy, it is just one way to explain gravity. Einstein simply wanted to provide the analogy as a means to help others better conceive what he was describing, and he may have had no intention to suggest that there was an etheric substance involved. And yet, it seems that there would have to be, at least within the context of this analogy.

We must remember, however, that what we are discussing here are merely conceptual constructs, mental descriptions that are meant to help us understand the unfamiliar in familiar terms. They are representative models, as any theory is, and as such, they can never be completely accurate compared to the real thing. The reason we need such models is to establish an understanding that explains our perceptions and experiences. They provide a foundation on which we can stand as we explore reality further. However, the map is not the territory, and yet science is relying more and more on using these conceptual maps as though they were the actual territory they are exploring.

It must be understood that gravitational force was not actually explained by Einstein’s theories, and they only put it into a context that made it somewhat easier to understand in familiar terms. That Einstein’s theories still require an etheric substance in order for them to make sense has been ignored or overlooked, and although the theories might be used to describe aspects of physical reality in a way that does not mention the concept of an ether within that description, this does not change the necessity of an ether, but only obfuscates the fact. We must ask ourselves why the scientific establishment has been so reluctant to incorporate this concept into its understanding of physical processes.

1 The quantum effect of entanglement does not seem to explain this gravitational effect.

Creating the UFO Enigma

We discussed in earlier chapters how we create our reality as we go along, and we cited as examples the discovery of neutrinos and the discovery of the planet Neptune. It is not too unreasonable, then, to apply this same hypothesis to the UFO enigma, and to consider the phenomena surrounding it in terms of reality in the making.

The most significant factor in this hypothesis is that of belief, in that what is manifested as physically real is what is predominantly accepted and believed as such. In the case of UFOs and all the various details and events that surround the issue – in particular, the variety of differences in accounts, as well as the variety of similarities between them – we see a commonly accepted understanding slowly taking on more and more objective, physical characteristics while the underlying experiences and beliefs surrounding these characteristics are still not fully or uniformly accepted and therefore not able to be fully and clearly explained scientifically. UFOs, and ETs in particular, are still not understood or even believed in well enough or in the same terms by a large enough segment of the population to allow greater objective evidence to arise other than what a small percent of us have experienced.

In considering this, we should remember that although most of us have never actually seen a neutrino, or the planet Neptune, we still accept them as real. Their existence was established based on a uniform understanding amongst those experiencing their effects more directly, as well as amongst the general population. In the case of UFOs and alien beings, however, the issue is quite a bit more complex for a number of reasons.

First of all, there is a great deal of doubt and skepticism irrespective of witness accounts to the contrary. The majority of this doubt and skepticism stems from those we normally respect the authority of and trust to tell us what we should believe. Unfortunately, these authorities have had a huge negative effect on the beliefs of the greater population in this regard, and this has caused a lot of minds to be made up before any proper consideration of the facts are even made. In spite of this, however, the strength of the beliefs of those who have experienced the strange events involved in UFO phenomena, and those who have heard their detailed accounts and who tend to believe them, offer the basis for an emerging reality to take shape on the strength of their somewhat misaligned but otherwise strong positive beliefs.

Second, because these events are not clearly understood in the same way by different people, and the fact that the experiences and events that take place are often quite different from one another to the point of causing some confusion between them, the manifestation of this emerging reality is slow in presenting itself in a clearly defined and understandable manner that fits into any one particular framework. Because of this, we continue to hear of details that confound our attempts to come to an understanding that can encompass all of these details within a single, uniform explanation.

There are some aspects of the UFO enigma that are generally uniform in the majority of accounts, but many more aspects that are not so uniform and which are perhaps causing an overload of secondary information that is making it seemingly impossible to come to any clear understanding at all. This might perhaps be the effect of divergent belief systems manifesting different types of events. What is happening in spite of this, however, is that certain aspects are becoming more predominant at the same time that other already predominant aspects are becoming more similar – even though these latter are not yet all identical. We see this in the descriptions of UFOs, in the physical characteristics of the aliens, in the manner of abduction events, in the technologies used, etc.

The very last aspect we may ever come to understand is that of the ultimate meaning and purpose of these events. As we have already learned in previous chapters, meaning is derived from order, and so we are not going to be able to understand the meaning and purpose of the UFO enigma until we can put it into some sort of order. To consider what that purpose might be is far to early to determine at this point, and since each of us has our own ideas about the matter that differ from those of others, the meaning and purpose of the events surrounding this subject may come to be quite varied. As it currently appears, we may find that we are dealing with multiple phenomena that are at variance in their meaning and purpose, yet hold many similarities between them.

In coming to a point where we clearly understand UFOs and the events that surround them, we are, in effect, deciding on the underlying order that will apply in support of their physical reality. As we come to work out what is to be accepted as the facts surrounding this matter, we bring it more into reality. Not very long ago, for instance, it was commonly believed that we were the only intelligent species in the entire universe. Today, however, almost everybody is, at the very least, open to the possibility that there is other intelligent life out there and that we are probably not so unique as we once thought. We changed our belief regarding this issue when we came to an understanding about our universe and ourselves that allowed for the probability of other intelligent life to exist as well. As with the neutrino, however, most of us have never directly experienced evidence of its existence and have no real need to. Our science tells us that it would be next to impossible for any spacecraft to travel the immense distances between our solar system and any other, so the likelihood of us being visited is considered by most people to be essentially nil. However, several of the current cutting-edge theories regarding quantum mechanics offer the possible means for such distances to be traversed almost instantaneously, so the possibility of alien visitation is not a dead issue as yet. And so the possibilities and impossibilities of such issues are hashed out as the necessary order that will allow it to be a reality is drawn up into a cohesive picture that matches the accepted facts.

We see in all of this the development of our reality as we work towards an acceptable understanding of the various separate events that have been categorized as UFO related. However, because this subject is not being openly approached in any official capacity by any government or other institution of authority, we are finding that the understandings being reached are remaining greatly individuated among the population. Because of this, the entire issue is coming to necessitate an understanding that is very complexly constructed, and which will certainly not be nearly as simple to understand as the existence of a neutrino, or even of the planet Neptune. Without some form of commonly accepted authority to lead the majority of minds, our beliefs regarding the UFO enigma may very well form into separate aspects of reality. For instance, it may unfold that we are being visited by beings from other planets, as well as from other dimensions, rather than just from one or the other. We must remember here that it is all a matter of how we choose to conceptualize it. At one time, the atom was conceptualized as the smallest possible piece of matter, but now it is conceptualized as a conglomeration of still smaller pieces. The events taking place, although categorized as UFO related, can become subdivided in any way that we might imagine. This includes a possible division between extraterrestrial and interdimensional phenomena occurring within the field of ufology.

And there are still other divisions that might be made as well in this area, such as that these events do not stem from extraterrestrial or interdimensional visitations at all, but are completely terrestrial in origin. It only takes an imagination to conceive how another intelligence might have always been sharing our planet, unbeknownst to us, and has perhaps been hidden away in the cavernous depths beneath our feet, where they have developed technologically in ways and by means that we could not at this point fully comprehend. The category of where these UFO phenomena stem from is thus still wide open to conjecture, and before we come to any conclusions, there may be still other possibilities that will arise that will cause us to think still further outside the box of our current scientific framework, and by this act complexify the matter even further before any clear determinations can be made.

We are finding in the studies of the UFO enigma that other, previously unrelated phenomena, such as poltergeist activity, Sasquatch sightings, psychic activity, etc., are coming to be more and more often directly related. This may very well be due to our unconscious need to hold reality together rather than to allow it to become too disparate in its various anomalies. This is not to say that these different types of events are actually unrelated and only seem to be so in our minds, but rather that the underlying creative aspect of our emerging reality is forming these different types of events into a more uniform and all-encompassing understanding. The relationships between these otherwise separate types of phenomena are being realized only much later than when the individual phenomena first begin to crop up. For instance, poltergeist activity was occurring for centuries on its own before it was ever found to also be related to UFO activity. It is similar with the sightings of Sasquatches and other strange creatures that have reportedly been seen over the years. These separate phenomena first arose without any connection between them, but are now beginning to manifest together, bringing them into a sort of uniformity of order that will eventually allow us to come to understand them all together in relative terms.

We must realize that nothing about our reality is ever absolute, and that because of this there will always be new phenomena to marvel at, and which will continually draw us towards greater understanding while at the same time creating further mysteries for us to explore. Whether we are creating these mysteries from out of our imaginations is not the issue, because all that was once a mystery was subjected to the imagination before it was ever demystified. This is how the process of creation works. The real question behind any such mystery is: where will it take us, and how will it affect us? With regard to simpler issues, such as with the discovery of the neutrino or the planet Neptune, these are simple enough questions to answer, and do not threaten to affect us in any marked way, and so these things are easily understood and accepted as real. With the UFO enigma, however, the potentials are far greater, and with so many separate and divergent minds contemplating the issue, as many possibilities are likely to unfold as potential realities.

That all of the divergent types of phenomena that have continued to mystify human minds for centuries (and UFOs have been no less witnessed throughout history than any other phenomena) continue to manifest in a somewhat similar fashion but remain sporadic in their occurrences and their characteristics difficult to pin down in concrete terms suggests that these are all creations emanating from a collective unconscious need or desire to evolve in a certain direction that these phenomena are effectively leading us. Of course, we do not necessarily mean here our own physical evolution, for these phenomena indicate a potential evolution of consciousness itself, being more subjective than objective to the greater population, and only slowly developing into an objective reality where they are accepted as such. More than even that, however, these phenomena indicate a potential evolution of reality itself.

It must be understood that although many people in the greater population may accept that UFOs are as real as they have often been described to be, these same people do not necessarily expect that they themselves will ever experience such a phenomenon. Therefore, the energy of their belief in such phenomena has no outlet within the environment of these people, and instead accumulates in an etheric state, so to speak, until someone somewhere else who both believes and expects to witness such an event, does so through the quantum wave collapse of this energy state into a physical manifestation.

It must also be understood that what we refer to today as UFO sightings and alien contacts have occurred throughout history, but perhaps not always being defined or otherwise thought about in quite the same way as we do now. The descriptions in the Bible of angels, when considered outside of any religious interpretation, sound very much like some of the alien visitors (or Men in Black) we hear about today. Similarly, when the presence of the Lord is described, it is incredibly similar to the description of a modern day spacecraft. The Book of Ezekiel in particular gives a very detailed description of what, to our modern understanding, can only have been a spacecraft.

That the earliest recorded manifestations have many similar characteristics to what we still witness today is not as unusual as it might seem, and these similarities may be due to any number of things, but the fact that they continually arise encourages us to consider a wider variety of possibilities as we work towards greater understanding. These similarities arise where we perceive order, and that perceived order will develop further and come to define the facts behind this current enigma until a mutually accepted reality surrounding it equates to its physical materialization.