Is the universe infinite?

I have been returning to this question lately – and I see three possible answers:

  1. The universe is finite
  2. The universe is infinite
  3. The universe is “infinitely finite”


Option 1 introduces an “edge problem” where the particles at the end of the universe will have interacting forces on only one side. If this option is true, the universe started out as point-like Big Bang, satisfying the requirements for a Black Hole.

If Option 2 is true, the universe has always been infinite since nothing can go from finite to infinite (or vice versa). It started out as infinitely large and very dense at the Big Bang, satisfying the requirements for a Black Hole at all areas of space.

Option 3 would be similar to moving on Earth’s surface – if you move straight in one direction, you eventually circle the Earth and end up where you started. The universe could be a 3 dimensional space residing in a higher dimensional space – if you travel in one direction, you would never reach an edge. Instead you can end up back where you started (given that the higher dimensional space is a uniform “sphere”). The universe could have started out as a small 4D+ space.

I can’t for the moment see other options. Please pitch in with your own views.

One question that often pop up with an infinite universe is this: “If the universe is infinite, would everything that can happen be bound to happen – and an infinitely amount of times?”. The usual answer when you Google this is “Yes.” The answer is the same for “If you throw a dice an infinite number of times, must you eventually roll a six? Must you in fact roll an infinite number of sixes?”

While it may be intuitively correct to answer “yes” to these questions, the answer is in fact wrong. Here’s why:

Consider the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, …

There are infinitely many of them … so 2 must show up more than once, right? Manifestly wrong.

But say we are talking about states of matter in a finite region. This would be modeled by using finitely many numbers, 1, 2, 3, say, and making an infinite list.

1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, …

You say 2 must appear again … but it doesn’t. If you have finitely many states and infinitely many trials, all you can say for sure is that at least one state must reappear infinitely many times. But any particular state, such as the state that defines “you” or a pink elephant or a galaxy; might appear zero, one, 47, or infinitely many times.

It’s amazing how many otherwise smart people are fooled into thinking that “in an infinite universe, everything must happen.” This is manifestly false.

So even in an infinite universe, a chance of something specific happening is undecided. This is related to the equation


which is mathematically undecided.

The question of whether the universe is finite, infinite or something else poses some interesting questions. And perhaps some interesting answers may arise.

342 thoughts on “Is the universe infinite?

  1. Good read Geir.

    From Wikipedia regarding the term “undefined” in mathematics. Is this what you mean regarding infinity divided by infinity?

    In mathematics, the word “undefined” has several different meanings, depending on the context.

    In geometry, simple words such as “point” and “line” are taken as undefined terms.

    In arithmetic, some arithmetic operations are called “undefined”. Two of the more famous examples are division by zero and zero to the power of zero.

    In algebra, a function is said to be “undefined” at points not in its domain. For example, in the real number system, f(x)=\sqrt{x} is undefined for negative x, i.e., no such values exist for function f.

  2. The curvature of space that is postulated by Einsteinian physics, seems to give a non-infinite quality to the physical universe. It is not so much that there are any boundaries to space, but that forces of attraction tend to group the universe towards a center.

    Multiple “Big-Bangs”/Black Hole Origin Points may interact to form one unfathomably huge universe, yet with near-infinite limits approaching infinity, but never reaching it (like the calculus equations that approach but never reach, infinity).

    In individual universes (sometimes called the “multi-verses” – the minds of people), abstractions such as infinite space and infinite, straight-line time-tracks seem to work out just fine.

    When time is viewed as SEQUENCE, and not given any definition related to matter and energy, then time is perfectly linear, with a straight-line model of eternal past and eternal future. Time may then be seen to be prior to and senior to, space, matter and energy. It is simply a series of events of all types (as detailed as a being’s thoughts as events in a sequence), independent of space and energy – those things we use to measure the passing of time and its relative speed.

    This post is the best I have have seen yet, on the posing of the problem of the finite or infinite character of space.

    But what I have attempted to point out above, is that this question as profound as it is, may be third-echelon in its order of things coming into existence:

    1- the character and origin of beings and thought (starting with Scn’s Axiom One)
    2- the character and origin of time as SEQUENCE (since viewed as SEQUENCE, time can be seen to stand independently of space and energy)
    3- the finite or infinite character of space
    4- the character of energies and grouped, solidified energies (matter)

  3. In your own post “What is reality?” you talk about a fourth alternative, the universe is made up as it goes by, by observers.

    1. I would originally classify this aspect under some form of “finite universe” – but when you bring it up, I see that this is another version of option 3 or even a fourth option.

  4. I have absolutely no clue how anyone would hope to crack the “code/s” applicable to resolve your questions posed, Geir.

    However, what I certainly DO see as ‘infinitely” pressing, is our urgent need to get right back INTO communication with our beleaguered planetary habitat!

    IT is suffering, bleeding, and dying, as this is being written.

    WE have more than a tad to do with this, you know?

    WE need to recognize “this” collapse as something directly caused by the lemming-like charge of our “wonderful, brilliant” species, as it heads over the cliff of oblivion, while pandering to ‘our’ uncontrollable obsession: — “I WANT!!” -backed by it’s only corollary — “Sure, you can have ANYTHING, for a PRICE!!”

    Just a plea for “sanity,” — to allow a time, opportunity and space, for ALL (earthlings), to continue their quest to follow their respective purposes, in THEIR natural habitat, sans the man-made destruction being wrought in terminating that balance in “Nature.”

    Open the eyes — see — the pain and loss WE are causing, through our refusal to observe the inevitable consequences of our obsessive/compulsive life(death)style.

    Or do we just continue to “fiddle” while (we see to it that) Rome BURNS??

    This unsustainable situation, is what will face our grand children, even more distressingly, than I have described here.

    — Unless we harness our collective “brilliance”, to urgently get back into communication (with nitty gritty survival imperatives) – there won’t be a habitat worth living in.

    Fiddle and BURN? — Or wake up and TURN?

    (Just a caring fellow earthling, emitting a distress call, on behalf of all the ‘voiceless’ ones. ) 🙂

    1. Surely you can see that “cracking the codes of the universe” go in the same direction as addressing such practical, pressing issues?

      False information and ignorance are the roots of destructive practices scourging the planet. It is being done on a scale beyond the ability of one individual to remedy by action. However, this is not a call to defeatism, but appeal to add the pursuit of truth, philosophy and science as vital components in the strategy to improve conditions, and not “superfluous” or “distracting.”

      Taking such an exterior perspective is not evading responsibility, but becoming even more effective, while also taking local, effective action and connecting with effective-action causes.

      I can say this being an “almost vegan,” 30-yr vegetarian, 30+ yr recycler and successful political activist. Striving for the truth and teaching it broadly, using the tools we have to educate others, is in my opinion and experience, our best hope.

      In this quest for improvement, everyone will hopefully play roles they are best suited for. This is just a common-sense practical direction towards greater efficiency.

      Finally and more directly on your point, it is far better to take up the cause you feel worthwhile by taking leadership yourself, and not by appealing to existing leaders to change their course of action to suit your vision. The intention is no doubt good, but the effect is subtle invalidation of a valid course of action in itself. In other words, I hope to speak for others who would be happy to take up practical, pressing causes, without abandoning broad, philosophical speculations. I agree with much of your appeal and think we should be doing both.

      1. Many thanks for your views, as much as your “connectedness” too WN! 🙂

        Oh and you can be most assured, that I am extremely vocal about this ’cause’, whenever an audience presents itself.

        Perhaps we need to consider the possibility that we may now be under a new form of ‘mind-control’, that simply vets any and all forms of man-made substitutes for nature, as somehow superior. Kids no longer practice one on one live communication — they text one another instead — though sitting a few feet apart! 🙂

        So my key point again, (just to reiterate), is that we desperately need to get back into communication, not just with each other (as a species) but with the entire panorama of life. There appears to be a ‘via’ having compromised that healthy interaction. And this is summed up in the foregoing paragraph.

        To summarize then, if we are able to sustain a balance with nature, that permits it to resume its abundance, we all win. If we continue to appease “I Want” — we ALL lose!

        “Balance” in our (each individual’s) decision making, is closely aligned to one’s ‘sanity’, don’t you think? 🙂

        1. Yes – heavy mind control and media manipulation has skewed (and screwed) correct analysis of the situation.

          For example (and I am not out to generate debate on this topic) – is global warming man-made? Vested interests on both sides of the issue generate their own analysis of the scientific data.

          People who come into balance tend to thrust equally well along life’s spectrum and balance interests in nature and conservation, with interests in personal pursuits and lofty philosophical pursuits.

          “I Want” is a core problem, exacerbated at every turn by scarcity-based mind control (or Madison Avenue advertising and Hollywood programming).

          1. We’re “all in this together”, WN, (yet another core problem, just shoved under the carpet, for expedience)

            Those that know me personally, get that I really care, across the Dynamics. And more than anything, I am the first to advocate less “seriousness” and instead let’s have more “fun and laughter”

            Though having a blast with one’s life, shouldn’t include just turning a blind eye to the wholesale destruction of the “playground”

            Fortunately, there are an enormous number of people on the planet, such as your self, who do distinguish just WHAT to take seriously. Creating a toxic, polluted, eco-system obliterating new world order, for the sake of expedience??? To achieve more comfort, wealth, power, ownership, convenience, “pleasure” LOL!

            We’ve fucked up pretty badly here, WN if we are unwilling to see this this, hey?

            “Back to the drawing board”, may be a good place to straighten out our inebriated state, — that is once we’ve had some sort of ‘shock-treatment’ to snap us out of our addictions and fixations to convert our ONE and ONLY shared planet, into a ‘pleasure dome’ and shop-til-we-drop experience to appease the “I wants”

            All because we’ve bought into this “new order”, that is most unfortunately. neither sustainable, nor healthy for the habitat, or its vast majority of directly affected species.

            A question that keeps popping up for me, is; “Will we be able to reverse this destruction, of our own volition, or will we just continue on our lemming-like journey, unable to avoid hurtling over the cliff.???”

            Perhaps, WN, that will depend on just how MANY of us, actually do wake up from this nightmare. Most of here, have just awoken from the CO$ one!! 🙂

            Oh and as I’m sure you will agree, we have actually had the ‘solutions’ to sustainable life all along, only they simply do not sit well with the “I Wants!”

            (my ‘condolences’, for veering ‘off-topic’ here, Just making a punt for sustaining the viability of our playground, you dig?)

            —-Sigh…. 🙂

  5. The concepts of finite and infinite are based on the structure that the universe itself provides. So the weakness of the pondering above is that it is circular. We are trying to define the universe in terms of the universe.

    Here is my logical view of the universe. The logical view of the universe is that it is harmonious in all aspects. It is this continued consistency that forms the background of truth. Any inconsistency simply points to some missing truth.

    Duality appears throughout the universe; but when that duality is observed closely it reduces to a continuously varying characteristic.

    This is a universe of change. It is changing continuously without stopping. Its behavior is analogous to the motion of a pendulum that keeps on swinging under the influence of gravity.

    Using the analogy of the pendulum, the extreme states of the universe may be called static and kinetic. The state of static corresponds to some maximum potential, like the one which exists at either end of the swing of the pendulum. The state of kinetic corresponds to some maximum dynamic, like the one which exists at the middle of the swing of the pendulum in either direction.

    As the state of static is reached at the end of a swing, it is disturbed immediately with the start of the next swing. So the state of static may exist only momentarily for the Universe. At that point the Universe shall consist of the maximum potential that is about to express itself in infinity of ways.

    Religions look at this “state of static” as God. Science looks at it as the point just before Big Bang.

    In the state of static there is no matter, energy, space, time, or even awareness. There is only a potential for all these things. We do not know what causes this potential. It may be some Cosmic influence, similar to gravity that keeps a pendulum swinging.

    But neither religion nor science has any clue about the Cosmic influence, which keeps this universe eternally changing,

  6. As a Pure Mathematician, Blues Guitarist and old retired Hippy I’ve always objected to the so called Intelligence Tests/ IQ Tests which begin ………. Tell me the next 2 numbers 1,3,5,7,9,11…….. Everyone answers 13,15 but WHY let’s say the series decides to jump (or not) to 1,3,5,7,9,11,15,19, etc and jump again or go back at some future odd number or even an even number. It might be 13,15 then again it might not – will it ever happen given infinite choices? Might do then again perhaps it won’t Denny

    Sent from Leviset’s iPad


    1. A mathematician should know that mathematics assumes reality to be discrete. There is nothing wrong with it. But that is, no doubt, mathematics limiting assumption.

      And this assumption what makes matematics fail in properly accounting for the Quantum phenomenon.

          1. Depends on what part of mathematics you start. There is nowhere in the foundations of mathematics a requirement that it is discrete. You may want to take a look at irrational numbers.

        1. Reference:

          This experiment proves in my mind that space is not a set of dimensionless mathematical points, and that there is a dimension to a location in space. In other words. what appears as two different locations from the “dimensionless point perspective” can actually be the same location.

          The location in space is elastic. It has converged toward a point when we consider the nucleus of an atom, but it is in the process of converging towards a point when we consider the electron. Space is a pointless continuum when we consider electromagnetic waves. We incorrectly assume this continuum to be a set of mathematical points.

          We base Mathematics on the postulate that everything is discrete. Therefore we look at the real space as a set of points. This is an error.

          We need a new mathematics based on the postulate of continuum where mathematical points can have a “dimensional density.” Imagine using a magnifying glass to focus the image of the sun on a paper. If we focus the image perfectly to a point it can burn a hole through the paper. This is like the space converged to a point. But when it is not focused, the image of the sun is out of focus and diffused over a region. This is like a point with a dimension. It is space that is moving away from being a “set of points” toward becoming a continuum.

          1. The premise that mathematics is discrete is false. But you didn’t answer my question. Mathematics has done remarkably well in accounting for all of quantum mechanics and particle physics so far. But you say it hasn’t. Could you please elaborate?

      1. Perhaps this may illustrate something of the limitations of mathematics?



        (I was careful to exclude Yin-Yang since that operates on a related, but different vector, as different qualities of energy)

        Mathematics is of course, an abstraction attempting to quantify observed qualities of Reality. (Related to this are axioms and principles as generalities intended to capture Realities by observation.) But Mathematics still comes amazingly close to capturing Reality by its finer abstractions (calculus accounts for infinity and near-infinity equations).

        It has been enlightening for me to overcome a prior assumption that Reason, Quantity and Math (Science) are “real,” when they are in fact, never more than good abstractions of Reality. This is the power of ego (the subjective) attempting to hold on to its fixed conceptions of “Reality” (mental structure by network of stable data).

        “Reality” enforces a constant re-evaluation of positions in space, knowledge of events, accuracy of perception and measurement, etc.

        Therefore, I repeat my conclusion stated above, that the Universe is infinite for the subjective (one’s multiverse that can be shared as in “collective unconscious” and must by observation be nearly infinite, yet finite (the reason being that an infinity of beings, space, energy, etc., is not actually possible, whereas an infinity of possibility, beingness, time, etc. – all qualities of the subjective multiverse of an individual being – is theoretically possible).

        Again, the question is at first quite paradoxical to the subjective mind, since the Universe appears infinite and the being “knows” (assumes) it is finite.

        Matter, Energy and Space (and Time reckoned by the motion of objects) are by their very nature, FINITE.

        Beingness and Time (reckoned by SEQUENCE) are subjective and are observably INFINITE.

        Referring once again to the above observed factors arrives at:


        (Note carefully which side these align with)

        1. Let’s try again without the arrows – which probably read as html code:


          DIGITAL — ANALOG


          1. ZERO can also be understood as representing the Unified Whole. It cannot be intruded or tampered with. It is QUALITY not QUANTITY. It is the “anti-numbers” concept that explains much.

            Much as I disdain Crowley, his gift to Hubbard of this concept was astounding.

  7. 4. Is it relevant or important to know the size and limits of the stadium playing field or what win could you have being at the corner of it; of course taking into account that you do not designed it. May be looking at the ongoing game or better yet, playing within could be relevant enough.

  8. Regarding the randomized sequence of just 1, 2, & 3 I think the statement is true when one looks at only ONE stream of numbers and probabilities. But the appearance of numbers and values appear in all kinds of ways. So, even if one number may appear in one sequence and never appear again or could potentially never randomly create a predicted value, it doesn’t mean it cannot or potentially NOT appear in other sequences that use different rules for their creation.

    And five is five in any sequence.

    Your DNA code could appear in Phi, Phi and countless other irrational numbers.

    So IF there are universes where some values never happen even if they are possible, that doesn’t exclude the universes where they DO happen.

    So … yeah. I think anything that can happen will. But not maybe in some ways one can expect.

    1. So, in a singular universe, we may indeed never appear again even if statistically possible. But in a multiverse, I think it is possible for us to appear all kinds of ways.

        1. All possibilities add to 1.

          A sphere is a one-sided die representing 1 geometrically, thus containing all possibilities.

          One can break down spheres into any number of cubes with six sides.

          If every possibility is manifested each time it spins and lands on itself.

          Then all potentials are thus mandatory.

          If every possibility is not manifested each time it spins and lands on itself, then all potentials are not mandatory.

          1. Well, with such a line of nonsense that I just wrote, then it would certainly be nice if the sphere determines if all potentials were mandatory or not.

            Such a notion could potentially define free will into two camps: Existence in one’s chosen mandatory potentials, OR existence in one’s own chosen non-mandatory potentials.

            1. It is hard to tell which is opinion and which is fact. I am not claimimg to be right. These are things to investigate.

            2. “Such a notion could potentially define free will into two camps: Existence in one’s chosen mandatory potentials, OR existence in one’s own chosen non-mandatory potentials.”

              Important concept and it would seem could be represented in such a model.

              Do we have some influence on the spin? (Do we “load” the dice in interaction with extant potentials?)

            3. “Do we have some influence on the spin? (Do we “load” the dice in interaction with extant potentials?)”

              Wow, this may be the mechanics of a postulate – or intention/intent, as some theoretical physicists term it.

            4. Yes on wave functions collapsing. And yes on the mechanism of postulates being the equivalent of making a choice – which I think are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

          2. Nope. The chance of one possibility not manfesting is one over infinity, not zero. Thus the possibility of something possible not happening in actuality is inifintely non-possible, but not absolutely impossible, thus not mandatory.

            1. “The chance of one possibility not manfesting is one over infinity, not zero. Thus the possibility of something possible not happening in actuality is inifintely non-possible, but not absolutely impossible, thus not mandatory.”

              So you are saying that even though all potentials add to 1, and a sphere can be rolled with mandatory certainty, that all values adding to one are not manifested by said action?

            2. This only makes sense IF a sphere is a one-sided die AND one presumes that all potentials in some way are manifested by it’s bouncing on a billiard table.

              And that is dicey. Round. But dicey.

            3. Jumping ahead to what I presume is your conclusion:

              IF what you say is correct about not potentials never having to actuate, then you can CHOOSE NOT to reincarnate a possible life somehow via postulate although (another self of you may be possible and perhaps even likely.) To do this, you would need to stack all potential “decks” and psychically load all dice OR connect to or create a potential that never actuates a “you” but actually exists and thus escape this reality and live outside it.

              Okay. I think I see your logic and your intention (LMK if I’m wrong).

              But there is something actually easier.

              As you know it is statistically possible to disappear from one room and reappear three feet to the left of you. Very, very rare, but possible according to Quantum Mechanics.

              So …

              Why not do that with an ash tray and make it disappear and reappear in such a manner that it appears to lift and float into the air as one yells, “Stand up!” at Tone 40?

              Because from what I can tell both powers (to escape the mandatory trap by riding a very thin probability curve) and “telekinesis” (via a FREAKING rare quantum event actuation) are about JUST as tough.

              So … why not just lift the ashtray with QM by warping the potential accusations so it can happen?

              Essentially, it is the same action – finding and exploiting ultra-rare events.

            4. Yes – but to collapse that amount of wave functions to just that result are perhaps beyond the powers exercized by any one for quite some time. I’m feeling very rusty in this area…

            5. Not even for Kudos Kissbuttingly Worshipping-Your-Feet-Eternitorious?? 😀

    2. “So … yeah. I think anything that can happen will. But not maybe in some ways one can expect.”

      It is kind of a circular way of thinking about what can happen. Does that mean that there is a flaw in the logic or does it point to a circularity in the universe?

      1. Either way, it appears to be just another friggin’ revolving door that is designed to spit you back out wailin’ fo yo Mamma.– No? 😥

      2. Well, I now accept Geir’s reasoning on this so I’m going with a flaw in the logic.

        But, there may be an “incompleteness” issue with probability and potentials. And perhaps there are potentials that never exist, or exist only once.

        For Nietzsche’s view of a circular universe to occur, one is really stuck in a static cycle with no dynamic change. And I think I have a pretty good “proof” that Geir’s idea is right and Nietzsche’s idea is wrong.

        We have conclusively proven mathematically that no set of “everything” can exist. And every “thing” points to values that have manifested. So that would point to the notion that there is no set of EVERY potential to make said values, and that a set of every potential is equally impossible.

        So, no set of all potentials that is complete and consistent.

        So the idea that “anything that can exist does so in a cycle,” falls apart on this notion as there is no set of “every potential” that exists to run over and over like a wheel.

        Saying that, tornados still happen.

        But, FUNCTIONALLY I think that even though it is possible to roll a die for infinity and never see a “6” the vast, vast, vastly-vastness-vastitudeity of times it will appear as predicted.

        So, I think that functionally what can happen is “mandatory” but not absolutely so.

        And just because an ash tray has a quantum potential to disappear and reappear in such a way that it looks like it is “standing up” and “sitting down” on command, it doesn’t mean it will actually happen.

        And if it DOES one doesn’t know if it was the INTENTION in line with coincidence or just mere quantum chance that made it happen.

        1. Great contemplation, Kat. Although it appears highly unlikely, that anything BUT ‘creative potential’ (God, Supreme architect of the Universe, “you”, the unseen, cause, etc, etc) would have any “intention” whatsoever.

          —Vis a vis: Imagine a lump of modelling clay, (a man-made material,) shaping itself into a perfect, prize winning sculpture! I work with the stuff, as an artist.. Believe me, if there was an alternative to actually conceiving ( a creative process) and painstakingly bringing the ‘vision’ into reality, (Even allowing for the speed of 3-D printing technology), I/We (artist/s) would go for it!

          The video posted by Marildi, featuring the physicist, John Hagelin, manages to put things in very clear perspective. We have an opportunity therein, to satisfy ourselves, that we are in fact, dealing with A/THE PRIMARY “cause/s” BEHIND all created effects/phenomena, upon which our currently focused theories rest, or are supposed to exist via mathematical/ quantum theory explanation.

          Conclusion? Complex highly evolve-ed/ing life organisms ( a supreme and self perpetuating species of mind boggling organization and complexity/ies) could not simply come into being without the/a PRIMARY ’cause’ laying out the master blueprint (DNA) and the supporting, equally vital ‘playground’ within which all activity/motion may take place. (including a separate ‘identity’ (viewpoint) for each.)

          The fact that various ‘laws’ have/are being discovered, that regulate rates of relative speed of motion, energy requirements and molecular composition, wave lengths, etc, necessary for life, death and dissolution of the redundant remains, shows conclusively, that one is witness to a Grand Master Plan at work.

          The necessity for ‘conclusive proof’ of primary “Cause”, can be approximated, by examining and satisfying oneself, that one CAN (Oneself) cause original effects via a creation visualized in the subjective (mental, imaginary) universe.

          The primary curiosity to find an answer to Geir’s O/P, would thus appear to resolve with the understanding that “ALL (created) things shall pass”. A– Finite! — based on the laws of the cycle of creation. This does not include speculations on the “Creator”, however!

          –racing…….(….(…….(……….(……………(……………. 🙂

  9. Currently, I see “the” universe as essentially a “ground of being,” a “field of fields” from which “all else” springs forth into “creation.” (Lots of quotation marks are needed here. 🙂 ) The “ground of being” can be called spirit or theta or God, etc. – or pure potential.

    The “all else” – being energy, being REAL – would have to be finite, it seems to me (intuitively, that is, as I am no mathematician). “All else” could include (and probably does) multiple physical universes as well as multiple “non-physical” universes (universes consisting of finer wavelengths of energy, as per LRH’s description of mental energy).

    I guess the ancients would have said the universe is neither finite, nor infinite, nor both, nor neither. That seems to fit my conception of a “non-real” ground of being as the basis of all that is real – that is to say, all that is perceivable/knowable.

    1. Very ‘sound’ speculation, Marildi! You present a considerable array of options for ever sparking, synapsing ‘grey matter’!! 🙂

  10. A lot of good thoughts!

    I like Marildi’s neither real nor unreal and field of fields ideas, seeing as these are abstract expressions of processes of which we are a part.

    1. Chris and Calvin, since you two took an interest in my post, I wanted to add that there happens to be some pretty compelling scientific evidence for what I wrote. One thing I think is significant is the research that shows brain functioning to correspond to the various states of mind – from normal activity, to a mindfulness type of contemplation, to going beyond thought completely – pure awareness, pure existence. And the brainwaves are synchronous and uniform across the total brain. That “order” makes me think of Dean Radin’s and others’ experiments where meditation or the like brings about less randomity in whatever measuring apparatuses are being used to monitor.

      Here’s an inspiring quote from the vid:

      “By alternating the brain activity from active focus to non-focused, inactive unbounded, specific to non-specific, the brain gets sufficiently flexible that inner silence and unbounded awareness and maximum orderliness of brain function becomes permanent – during dynamic activity, during sleep, during dreaming, during anesthesia. Once the light of life has really turned on, you can never extinguish it. And that’s called liberation or enlightenment, because although one experiences the upheavals of day-to-day activity, one is anchored in something that is beyond.”

      1. About the Hagelin video:

        “Progress in theoretical physics during the past decade has led to a progressively more unified understanding of the laws of nature, culminating in the recent discovery of completely unified field theories based on the superstring. These theories identify a single universal, unified field at the basis of all forms and phenomena in the universe.

        “At the same time, cutting-edge research in the field of neuroscience has revealed the existence of a ‘unified field of consciousness’—a fourth major state of human consciousness, which is physiologically and subjectively distinct from waking, dreaming and deep sleep. In this meditative state, a.k.a. Samadhi, the threefold structure of waking experience—the observer, the observed and the process of observation—are united in one indivisible wholeness of pure consciousness.

        “These parallel discoveries of a unified field of physics and a unified field of consciousness raise fundamental questions concerning the relationship between the two. We present compelling theoretical and experimental evidence that the unified field of physics and the unified field of consciousness are identical—i.e., that during the meditative state, human awareness directly experiences the unified field at the foundation of the universe.

        “We show that the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the unified field may be required to account for experimentally observed ‘field effects of consciousness.’ We present the published results of a National Demonstration Project—in which 4,000 advanced meditators markedly reduced violent crime in Washington, DC. We briefly discuss mechanisms from quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and superstring theory that could explain the proposed link between human neurphysiology and the unified field of physics.”

        1. Thanks for the further elucidation, meheart. Points were readily taken aboard, though, with an amazing level of resonance shared with the clear descriptions given by John Hagelin. So easy to duplicate a presentation of that caliber..

          A great find, meheart. Assuredly bookmarked for references,

          — Schmo, ( the guy with the irrepressible inner “glow.” ) 🙂

          1. “Points were readily taken aboard…with an amazing level of resonance shared with the clear descriptions given by John Hagelin.”

            Astutely and succinctly stated, Schmo, me bro. 🙂

            Seriously, It’s one of the most illuminating videos I’ve watched, in both breadth and depth – and that’s saying a lot since I’m a youtube aficionado. 😉 I’m happy you appreciated it!

  11. Geir, “What a smorgasbord of interesting morsels”– I can almost hear you say. 🙂

    Well then, to add to the “three possible answers”
    —- Here are a few more:

    4) A infinite number of ‘speculations’ ABOUT the correctness/incorrectness of infinite speculations!

    5) Assuming you somehow managed to find this erstwhile thoroughly elusive “answer”, what would you then actually DO with it??

    6) Will it help if I offer you a ride on my 300kmh 2-wheeled rocket?? 🙂

  12. Finite and infinite quantities are interesting to consider. We can demonstrate the infinite within the finite, the finite within the infinite, the infinite within the infinite and the finite within the finite.

  13. On the subject of universe, the term can be and seems to be used ambiguously. What we can know about it can grow forever yet never know it all. The universe might be infinitely large yet progressively revealing itself to us less. Knowledge is fractal. This means that more and more of it may become compressed into less and less space. Contrarily, space time seems to be growing yet containing less knowledge (if the growing sparseness of space is less.

    It is fun to consider our assumptions and to use new discoveries to dissolve our old assumptions.

    1. Good grief, Chris! You have re-e-e-a-a-l-l-ly, got me nervous about this! :/

      — You mean to suggest that the living on-the-edge, risking life and limb, (breaking a few, while at it), Slugging it out with crims, and nasties, trading comfort for cohorting with savages, just to bring home the odd crust of bread, is NOT FUN??

      –Clearly, I’ve just got it all wrong!! 😦

      Okay, Okay! Tell you what… Here’s what I’m gonna do! First, get in touch with the people who seem to know everything! (Geir, Vinnie, Kat, Mx, Tex?, Hex?, etc.) Next, have that guy, “Scotty”, beam me up to the Quantasphere, (or wherever) Then get completely stripped of all the nonsense and error-laden planted programs I’ve been running on.(spin, spin,spin, wash, repeat etc,!!) … Just to, you know — wrap things … up.. Finally!! (sob) 😥

      — That’s it then! — Decision made! — Any gene pool of Supa IQ couples, having trouble conceiving? ‘Cause I can offer you certain attributes, that could give you an “edge” (I do come equipped with super-fast reaction time, you know? So give you no comm-lags if you ever need to know what’s cooking with ‘baby’ !! ) Yep, totally willing to give the ‘nerd-a-geek’ existence my best shot. B)

      Good -O, Chris!! You’re a life saver/maker! Thanks, man! 3:)

    2. “Knowledge is fractal.”

      – Chris Thompson

      “We’re all fucked.”

      – Lawrence Kraus
      (on the ability of Science to err, particularly in regard to science-based future societies on other planets in the far future trying to discover evidence for the Big Bang)

        1. Let us trust we are fortunate enough to re-prevail in putting these erstwhile assumptions under review. Rumor has it that DWARF Inc. is running discounted specials on titanium plate engravings to preserve such wondrous insights, just for the inevitable future speculation mongers. In anticipation of such, I have taken the liberty of tm** -ing a ‘future betting company” –

          ……………………………………RACING’S ODDS.**………………………………………

          …………………………….”– top even the best of the rest “………………………….

          1. The assumptions that need to be examined are those that have always been assumed as facts, such as the idea of soul, self, free will, etc. Anything that is assumed as fact is no longer subjected to further examination. One is then stuck with it.

            To me self is just a concatenation of “stable data” precipitated from increasing confusion. Soul is just a desire for that self to continue beyond death.

            1. “To me” — the entitlement of conviction that (your) self/soul will not continue beyond death, as the desire for continuance (by others) is regarded (by you), as mere “confusion.” (on the part of presumed “others”.)

              Another opinion proclaimed as fact?

              Is there ever a point in your life when you are able to simply arrive at “acceptance”, without the compulsion to then counter this by then AVOIDING doing so?

              Birds DO fly! Fish DO swim! Whether one can accept this, or not! How much further does one need to subject this (fact) to further examination.

              With “acceptance”, we certainly are no longer “stuck with it”, but on the contrary, freed to move our attention to activity more worthwhile! (It seems.–“To me”)

            2. Yes, it does get interesting when a perishable self is examining itself. It assumes itself to be permanent. It has to because it is permanent to itself. It doen’t know when it is not there.

            3. Vinaire, I actually agree with you on this. (reference to ‘self’)

              Where our view diverges, is in the willingness to perceive, or more accurately, distinguish, between the transcending of the limiting ‘self’, to the certainty of pure “awareness” sans any of the add-on / add-in considerations made.

              Therein, (pure awareness) would appear that primary orientation ‘potenrtial’, without ANY physical limitations of the ‘self’ Pure “awareness” is simply that.

              Thus, as the ultimate ‘perceiver,’ we may understand this ‘recipient / transmission point’ to be in actual communication with the ‘Grand Intelligence’ of which it appears to be an emissary component.

              “Awareness” demonstrably reaches beyond physical barriers of brain (MEST), to assume the message/s, communications and/or intentions emanating from this primary world or higher dimension/s Intelligence.

              Refusal to accept / duplicate the existence of this ‘primary cause’, does not contribute to the resolution of the riddle at hand — merely perpetuates it.

              Nor is the refusal to do so, capable of controlling and /or influencing deliverance of Higher Power / Intelligence interventions, that defy logical ‘human’ explanation.

              Playing ‘smarter’ than “God”, is not the first choice of the “Awareness”, but probably more of an irresponsibility, than a seeming aberration.

            4. Is there “pure awareness’ as you are postulating? I have always found awareness and motion to be counterparts of each other.

              No motion = no awareness and vice versa.

            5. Vin, in this video, the British non-dualist Rupert Spira gives an analogy to express how awareness is always there – even in deep sleep, where there is no motion (i.e. perception) and apparently “no awareness.”

            6. I totally get what you’re saying. But I think this is the case because of our indoctrination into duality. Here’s another 5 minutes on just the topic of awareness during deep sleep.

            7. Duality appears throughout the universe; but when that duality is observed closely it reduces to a continuously varying characteristic that can be represented on a scale.

            8. Both language and thought dualistic, by their very nature.

              I’ll be away from my computer for awhile, but here’s one more short one for you:

            9. There is only best approximation.

              Buddha declared.

              “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

              DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

              This postulate may appear self-contradictory to some, but it essentially says, “There are no absolute certainties.” This is reflected in one of the most ancient hymns, The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda.

              All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty.

              That is how science makes progress. Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but there may possibly be a wider context in which the speed of light is a special case.

              Similarly, in the field of spirituality, we cannot be absolutely certain that self or soul is permanent. The phenomenon that is described as self or soul must be open to further investigation.

              There is little progress possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute.

              One can always improve upon a certainty one has.


  14. GODDAM Vinaire! BOOM!

    “Yes, it does get interesting when a perishable self is examining itself. It assumes itself to be permanent. It has to because it is permanent to itself. It doen’t know when it is not there.”

    FUCK. Exactly.

    EXAMPLE: One gets knocked unconscious and wakes up a week later. He looks at his girlfriend and says, “Hey don’t we have a party to go to?” Only to find out it was four days ago.

    But his self feels like it never skipped a beat. Anesthesia does the same thing. IT DOESN’T KNOW WHEN IT IS NOT THERE.

    My mom is fading under Alzheimers. I see her almost every day. She doesn’t know she has it even though the doctor told her. I once reminded her she had Alzheimers and she flatly denied it!

    ME: “Mom, if you had Alzheimers would you want to be told about it.”
    MOM: “Yes.”
    ME: “Mom, you have Alzehimers disease.”
    MOM: “I DO NOT!!”

    She soon forgot the conversation.

    She is in the blissful part of the disease, clueless to the fading of self.

    So I asked her a question two weeks ago: “Mom, someone I have known a long time, one of my dearest friends has Alzheimers but she can’t remember having it. Should I remind her?”

    “No. Best to let her enjoy her happiness as she has it.”

    “Okay mom,” I said silently vowing never to tell her again.

    “That’s a shame,” she said.


    BOTTOM LINE OF DHARMA: “No gaining. No knowing. The mountain doesn’t concern itself with the passing clouds.”

    My mom likes to sit and drink her coffee and ponder at scribbles on a blank piece of paper wondering what it means or used to mean …

    Passing clouds.

      1. Watched Marildi’s movie by the Physicist. Nice notions. Things I would LIKE to be true.

        So when I get around to it, I’ll check the references.

        Starting with my top Google search structure: “((SUBJECT)) debunked.”

        Always start with the dirt. That’s where the ground is …

        1. “Always start with the dirt. That’s where the ground is …”

          Fair enough, Kat, but you should check out the dirt on the dirt too. The “debunking of the debunkers.” 😉

          I found an extremely well written article about the book *Quantum Gods* by Victor Stenger. In the article, Stenger’s criticisms of John Hagelin (for one) are taken up in a very thorough and intelligent way. To give you an idea, here’s an excerpt from the Abstract:

          “Stenger—a retired physicist who is leveraging his scientific background to try to discredit anything and everything that smacks of spirituality—doesn’t respect his intellectual opponents enough to get their positions right; in some instances he appears to deliberately misrepresent their views; and, most important, his own reasoning is characterized by unremitting carelessness. Moreover, there is a method to his carelessness—it enables him to systematically avoid addressing the tough arguments of his opponents. Hence we find him frequently setting up a straw man by misrepresenting the debate as a simple matter of science and reason versus superstition. Once having defined this as the issue, all he needs to do is assume the attitude of an outraged scientist and heap on the ridicule. But if he had done his homework and taken the trouble to really understand the science and logic supporting quantum spirituality, he would have discovered that it is harder to dismiss than he had imagined. Indeed, the more carefully—and yes, critically—one considers the issues, the more one finds quantum spirituality to be eminently worthy of serious consideration, as a plausible and measured approach to the most long-standing and intractable questions at the basis of science.”

          The article is pretty long but if you want, you can do a word search for “Hagelin” and scroll down to review those portions.

        2. Hehehe. Yeah, Kat. “All THINGS shall pass.” — But “no-thing” shan’t 🙂

          (Form shall ultimately perish. How about the unseen ‘creator’ of form though?)

          — “Certainty derives from clarity of observation” :).

          (Notion from the lookout tower of The Titanic, just seconds from disaster) “All clear ahead, Captain. 😀 — Join the crowd “below” .. Keeeeeerrrrunnnchh!!

          (^^^) (^^^) (^^^)

          1. Kat, that’s true. With regard to your Mom and the debilitating state she has now entered, — the accompanying denials and selective memory losses: There can be ‘blessings’ in those denials. I too, have witnessed the pain induced by those affected. It is of course, most felt by those who are witness to the deterioration.

            It is unfortunately, the ‘support system’, comprising those closest to the affected member, who actually appear to suffer the most.

            The capacity/ability to experience ‘present time’, is generally the first casualty in the onset of the disease. One can almost see this ‘shut down’ as an automatically ‘tripped circuit-breaker, — a prevention of overload to the sensitivities of the person involved. Thus, the gradual ‘insensitivity’, CAN act as a ‘ disguise.’

            Having said that, perhaps there are actually more blessings and lessons
            to be taken from your own recent personal involvement in the study of Stoicism.
            Indeed, it is the acquisition of strength during adversity, that assists us to get through the tough times we face.

            Hang in brother, THAT’S what helps us appreciate the values we share! 🙂

      1. It’s been hitting me hard this week, and is the hardest lesson for me to face.

        Ignorance has a new dual definition for me. It’s not just knowing things to be true that aren’t, it’s also not knowing what we don’t know.

        Listening to the audiobook for the fifth time “The Power of Habit” as I drive about town. It talks about a man named Eugene who went by “EP” In scientific literature.

        A virus ate the part of his brain that was responsible for forming new memories. He couldn’t retain any new information. But his brain DID remember new things even though his conscious mind couldn’t recall them.

        “Can you draw me a map to the kitchen?”


        “Eugene, could you get me a glass of water from the kitchen?”


        He would get up and go get it but he couldn’t tell you HOW he knew to do it. He could go on long walks and find his way home, but couldn’t tell you what the house next door looked like.

        The most troubling thing for me is that he could never remember that he was a brain patient. He didn’t remember the illness that changed him. He didn’t remember he had memory loss. Everything was just one thirty second window starting over and over.

        But he could still learn patterns and habits, but he would never remember again.

        So, what bugs the shit out of me is the realization that I’m really no different than my mom or EP in that I don’t know WHAT I don’t know. And no matter how smart I get, that is never going to change.

        But perhaps there is a charm in that if one chooses courage anyway.

  15. My selfish ego that wants to live powerfully, free and forever, so I tend to turn these conversations into efforts to find a way for my ego to permanently prove itself.

    But, even with me lifting an ash tray in front of James Randi for the tenth time in a row to his gaping mouth (using my telekinesis supah pow-uhs!) while he opens his checkbook for that million dollar booty, I CANNOT prove that it was choice or merely a quantum random event.

    So my ego is STILL fucked .

    No gaining. No knowing.

    1. “, I CANNOT prove that it was choice or merely a quantum random event.”

      Because of this, I smell a paradox in the determinism vs free will argument. And because of that I wonder at the validity of the premise of free will or of determinism (which also seems to have a will.) Obviously (as KG has many times pointed out) one cannot see any difference in the Universe by taking one stance or the other. Right?

    2. “or merely a quantum random event.”

      The idea of randomness no longer seems necessary. We seem to neglect to remember that it was a placeholder for our lack of explanation for things. As we explain our world better, randomness has continually reduced, I think.

        1. Yes, that is the right reference. Busy with the mundane, it has taken me a few days to get back here and to see everyone’s comments and to wade into “hidden variable theory.” Fortunately I have begun to have some small familiarity with these concepts. I would never challenge the mathematics of the great ones as I am too illiterate in the language of mathematics. I try to understand these physical concepts as a kindergarten child would understand. Maybe this is not possible for me to get an acute understanding at this level.

        2. From Hidden Variable Theory
          “Born’s interpretation of the wave function was criticized by Schrödinger, who had previously attempted to interpret it in real physical terms, but Albert Einstein’s response became one of the earliest and most famous assertions that quantum mechanics is incomplete: “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One’s secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice.”

          I understand from this article that quantum mechanics was “declared complete” by Max Born and Werner Heisenberg. I will not attempt to fool anyone that I understand the scope of the word “complete” as used in this context. However, I do have a some grasp of the word theory. And when I read quotes like these from Einstein and Heisenberg’s devout Christian views, I realize that brilliance in one area of thought may not naturally spread to other areas of thought. To me this only shows me that I happy for science, a method of thought which ideally is self correcting. Great People’s personal attitudes and social and religious views neither take away from nor add to their wonderful breakthroughs.

        3. I like Katageek’s tackling of the relative differences between between a deterministic universe of wet-meat bodies and of the universe of free-willed thetans and have to agree that there is none. We cannot see any difference. Therefore, arguing over these two metaphors, for me, becomes mute. Either of these universes can be considered “complete.”

          Maybe I argue for the relevance of an infinite number of “possibly correct” metaphors, as you do in your article “What If Everyone Was Right?” My argument about randomness is not so much that there isn’t randomness as that randomness as a concept may be an archaic word to describe something which will one day be understood.

          1. Except QM seems to prove that there cannot be any understanding below that of pure randomness as the basis for existence. An interesting point is that free will is indeed mathematically indistinguishable from randomness 😉

            1. ” . . . QM seems to prove that there cannot be any understanding below that of pure randomness as the basis for existence. . . . ”

              Are we talking about “proof” or talking about “observation?”

            2. I believe that my point in all this is that the concept of randomness seems for me buried deeply within an entire universe of data. Stephen Wolfram, building on the work of greats like Alan Turing and Benoit Mandelbrot, and using computer graphics, demonstrates how complex (and recognizable) structures can be built from simple rules. The forward progress in demonstrating this has been through the use of computer speed iterations which to my mind can mimic enormous amounts of space-time.

        4. In my world, randomness reduces with scientific discovery. It seems to me that randomness will continue to be replaced by understanding into the very small and into the very large and the very young and into the very old. It is like a reverse of entropy, if that could apply.

          1. Point is, with QM, we get to the actual bottom of the universe, where the understanding stops. There is this lower limit to understanding called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

            1. Let me study on that one a bit. I get that the smallest “meaningful” bit of EM is a full wavelength or photon of light. That is the extant idea. That’s the bottom?

            1. We might be discussing apples v oranges at this point. That is surely an interesting observation. But since the tunneling occurred freely (observed) during dim illumination, and stopped moving during strong illumination (observed.) Then the difference was the intensity of the illumination and not the observation, correct? Or don’t I get it?

            2. I have a book called THE THEORY OF ELEMENTARY WAVES by Lewis E. Little. In it, he gives a classical explanation for the phenomena occurring during the “Double-Slit Experiment.” Using classical waves he demonstrates how particles strike the detector and set off a rebounding reverse-wave which provides the interference which has heretofore muddied classical waters. I would not attempt to defend this theory nor dispute it as I am not up to the challenge. What I like about it is his dispute with the apparent paradox which gets described as “spooky-effects.”

              I dug up a 15 year old video presentation of his theory to JPL in Pasadena and present here an exerpt:

        1. Yes, you are probably right.

          My real conjectures have to do with trying to conceptualize the congenital quality of space-time, itself. For example, my inclination is to believe in space-time as an elastic and dynamic medium. Space-time is the second stage of Universe after Unity. I think of Unity as a zero point between cycles of this sector of the Universe. These are just thoughts that I play with.

    1. Bingo! — Thus no passion, motion, emotion, excitement, etc. — For all intents and purposes — one is OUT of the “game”, — no longer “Living!”

      — Hence the decision (postulate) to add “motion” to just “pure awareness”(BE-ing), embarking upon DO-ing, in order to add some meaning to “EXISTENCE!” — Having, experience, creation of effect/s etc, etc.(Physical or spiritual)

      This all seems to compute quite nicely — for me — anywee! 😀

        1. Indeed, Geir! Just additional affirmation of a fraction of the results culled via the VAST territory you have already covered, in sharing your own unpretentious explorations and journeys to date! ( — Without the pooled contributions of which, I would NOT be so thoroughly enjoying my current ‘life’ experience/s.). Again, thank YOU, especially for your approachability!

          –C. 🙂

            1. Hell yeah, Geir! Man it’s just such a breeze, when the orchestra “plays” in sync. with (the swayin’ of) the trees. True music to the listenees! 🙂

    1. Oh, Vinaire. The pompous self proclaimed guru continually presenting his opinions as undisputable facts. And habitually trying to offend those who have opposing views. The “I respect your truth” lasted only a day before he turned personal with an ad hominem attack.

      Vinaire, this really makes you look stupid.

      1. I have to say, it was a pretty strange comment to post with a “bald face.” I wasn’t sure what was intended, but it did seem to have a negative implication. Maybe Vinnie will explain himself.

        1. Cold, indifferent, devoid of any semblance of life or vitality.– THIS, is what is coming across – (whether intended, or not.) Perhaps there is another issue fueling this manifestation from our ‘brother’? 😦

          Fortunately, there are still a few warm, beating hearts in our midst, that openly respond accordingly. (comradery) 🙂

            1. Yeah? Well, there is plenty of evidence that they ALSO happen to act as “fuel”, to go beyond merely “seeing things as they are”, to the actuality of “realizing how they CAN be! ” ie:– GETTING things DONE, bro! 🙂

              — Done “robotically”, on the other hand, just seems to do absolutely nothing, for the morale (discernible via an increase in TONE).

              Peace and Mindfulness, my good man! 🙂

          1. I think where he replied that “Scientology is all about making the ego solid,” he was alluding to the principle in Scientology that the thetan is fundamental – and Vinnie equates the thetan with the ego (I’m basing that on my understanding of many of his posts in the past).
            And he considers that “the ego” (by which he means the thetan) is essentially no different from any other piece of mest – no free will, no volition of its own, merely another part of the mechanistic universe. He will call it “spirit” but when talking about “spiritual” matters, it’s clear to me that they are just a segment of the physical universe.

            Thus, an OT 8 (not necessarily you, Geir – any OT 8), due to having done the whole Scientology Bridge, would have built up “the ego” more than anyone in Scn – to the degree that this ego is very solid and heavy – or, as he put it, “a heavy particle.”

            The good news is that I don’t think he was actually taking a pot shot at you. 😉

            1. Given Vinaire’s track record on this blog, I think you are doing him a disservice in over-positively defending him. I think most readers got perfectly well what he meant. And, given his habitual rudeness when facing opposition to his unfounded opinions, I am wondering if I should ask him to leave. I may add that not long ago I asked him, well actually begged him, to act in a more civilized and polite manner on my blog. After repeated pleading, he reluctantly responded that he would. But after years of interaction on this blog and elsewhere with him and others, I see him as the most special case of no willingness to change. He is stuck in his own rut, desperate to peddle his philosophy but finding himself a wannabe guru with no audience. Hence he hangs around here. But perhaps no more.

            2. Vinnie’s attitude seems to primarily come down to his huge protest over the idea of a thetan. Ironically, the likely reason he and many others conceive of the thetan/soul as nothing more than an energy manifestation – the way ego is basically defined – is that those people have not experienced their own beingness as pure awareness – that is to say, awareness in and of itself, rather than “awareness OF (something or other).”

              In this respect, these people are actually being true to their own observations – and are protesting what they strongly feel is a false idea. I even get that they may be sincerely trying to show people how misguided they are.

              This idea of knowing, through direct experience, one’s own beingness/presence is described in an amazingly short and simple way by the Jamaican spiritual teacher Mooji:

            3. Marildi is applying mindfulness. That is good.

              Christianity assumes God to be a constant. Scientology assumes the thetan to be a constant. These assumptions lead to major errors.

              Hinduism correctly treats God as a variable by giving it millions of different forms.

              On the other hand, the self is also infinitely variable from person to person. It is the person himself who sees self and God as constants.

            4. Vinaire: “…the self is also infinitely variable from person to person.”

              If you are equating thetan (or soul) with “self” or “ego,” then you are setting up a straw man to argue against – so as not to have to address what is meant by thetan/soul.

              Btw, Vinnie, on that OT 8 comment, you don’t get a full pass from me either because I also got that part of what you intended was to slight Geir. Maybe you didn’t mean it that seriously, but if that’s the case I think you should just say so.

            5. Which games? The “game” of addressing the actual issue of thetan/soul? Or the game of sorting out an upset?

            6. Through thousands of posts I have never seen Vinaire apologize for any bad behaviour, even when it’s pointed out by many. He seems so sure of his own rightness of what he does that he never needs to really view another’s emotions, let alone apologize for anything. I believe psychology has a term for that, I’ll try to look it up.

    1. Interesting question. According to Einstein, it is. Gravity curves space and objects are in continual motion creating changing curvatures in space, hence space is in motion. But, whether space is actually curved by gravity of a convenient mathematical representation is another matter.

      1. Now that I am aware of fractal compression as used to compress data, it gives me another tool to pry open my imagination to see how gravity could conceivably be space flowing into already contracted and compressed space.

  16. Let me sum up the unspoken mythology Geir, Marildi and Racing seem to be saying (Open for Correction of Your Viewpoints)

    1. The universe is infinite, finite or infinitely finite.
    2. Regardless of it’s infinitude, the universe is mocked up by spiritual beings both individually and collectively. Thus every being has a say in every atom.
    3. The mocked up universe runs on an a mostly mandatory probability structure that science has modeled via Quantum Mechanics, but there are loopholes if you are a rehabbed being and you can escape the trap and be your real self by manipulating the loopholes in probability.
    4. The spirit-soul-atman-thetanI is like the uncertainty principle, it cannot be known with full certainty, consistency and completeness and can be damaged and trapped or healed and strengthened to take advantage of said loopholes.
    5. Even though LRH stated in a lecture that people were actually telekinetically lifting ash trays with just tone 40 intention not one person here can duplicate this feat.

    1. I once witnessed an unexplained telekinetic event. Walking out of and locking up a building, from outdoors I noticed that I had left a light on in one of the offices. I told the old OT7 guy I was walking with I would walk back around, unlock and shut the light off. He smiled and pointed his finger like a gun at the glowing window and making a child-like popping sound (as though he had shot a gun) turned the light out. I told him, “Thanks!” and smiled. He said, “No problem” and smiled. I stopped at my car in the parking lot and he continued across the street to his apartment. I stood there until he was out of sight, then went back, unlocked the building and checked to see if anyone was around and there wasn’t. Even though I acted nonchalantly, I puzzled and spun on this for quite a while trying to figure out what had happened. It was a very confusing event for me. I am not absolutely sure about a few things about this but it helped me learn how and why people would become upset at apparent magic, even how they might become hostile about it.

    2. Ultimately, I do not think it was magic in the sense of an OT power and I do not think that it was not magic in the sense of an OT power. The fellow who “performed” the trick was not particularly able in other ways. This was not a typical nor part of a successful trend. I have tried to not let that sway my opinion about the event. Like a UFO experience that I had, I maintain that I do not know what occurred, only what I experienced.

      1. The great Skeptic Michael Shermer also had a crazy event as well at his wedding. He tried like crazy to get an old radio to work (it was his bride’s father’s possession who had passed on.) He tried new batteries, and toyed and toyed with it. It NEVER worked. They so wish he could have attended the wedding.

        And then at the “Perfect” moment during a height of timing, it turned on – playing a love song.

        Even Shermer was shook.

        If I got in a space ship TODAY and flew off all around the galaxy or went inter dimensional and returned with only the clothes on my back. What would I tell people? Probably nothing except to people I know wouldn’t lock me up.

        1. Yes. I went inside and checked the switch. Even in that moment, I was in wonder at my own reaction to this “OT” phenomena. I may have missed something. I may be ignoring something obvious. Finally, I learned that I could assign the understanding this event a “certainty” of what occurred. However, I have found it more useful to me to meditate on my “non-understanding” of the mechanics of what I believe that I saw.

    3. Nice constructs there, Kat. — My responses follow:

      !. a) The Universe, I understand to be “created,” thus finite.
      …b) Space, appears to be an infinite empty vacuum, with no other potential than to be occupied by matter and energy.

      2.a) I currently see all “creation” of the physical universe, as emanation from the unseen Higher Power of cosmic Intelligence (colloquially– God, Infinite Supreme Being, etc).The process appearing to follow the theorized Big Bang and random placement of planetary location and nucleic core.of their primary building blocks– atomic particles and their similar order of construction.
      b) As for the individualised spiritual beings, I merely see them as an “emissary” of the Cosmic Intelligence, capable of creation of a “lower order”, than that supreme creation, which is capable of genetic reproduction, mutation, and thus persistence as material, DNA, cells, primordial and complex life organisms among the known development of evolution. The ’emissary’, appears to exist, quite independent of location, time, motion, space – other than that ’embraced’ during an ’embodied (incarnated) period of experience! Upon termination of the body, the ’emissary’ merely resumes ‘oneness’ (it’s native state) with the Cosmic Intelligence. The ‘return’ (re-incarnation) appears to be the ever Dynamic decision to manifest in physical form, whatever, wherever that form may take.

      3.a)The ‘mocked up’ universe, appears to run on universal ‘laws’ which were part and parcel of the ‘original’ creation, permitting these creations, the potential to evolve, replicate, mutate, perish as per the laws of creation governing the duration of each.
      b) The development of science, appears to me to certainly include the observation, measurement and calculation of these Laws, and the resulting studies reduced to working principles and theories used for human expedience and exploration of deeper understanding, of these as yet “unexplained” phenomena, of our always dynamic, evolving universe.
      c) Geir is perhaps the best qualified (among us), to answer you questions on rehabbing and entrapment of a being/beings, by “manipulating probabilities”

      4. a)The spirit-soul-atman-thetan, to me, is no more than (as I said), an “emissary”
      from The Cosmic Intelligence. with the quality of assuming an identity/ego, which is ADDED onto this primary IMmortal emissary/soul, which then assumes existence of a ‘mind’ for the purposes of ‘creation’ within the confines of a brain, which controls/ regulates a finite mortal organism which we may refer to as “me” (Whew ) 😀
      b) Aside from an Uncertainty Principle, our erstwhile rovin’ adventurous em-bodied soul fella’, CERTAINLY can and does get hisself into all manner of traps n’ deep doggy do. ‘God’ decreed there has to be pain/pleasure (yet more Laws, bound up in the triangle of ARC – Affinity (sharing space) Reality (agreement/empathy) and Communication, (the tool used for interchange/understanding) in the mix, right?
      The Spirit of Play is most evidently right up there with the Best on offer, in our assorted role playing hey, from merely playing with one another, to the play that occurs within a wide assortment of dissimilar species! 🙂 All contributing to the vast panorama of life, which has now become almost invisible, to many of our “self centered” I-see-I-want-I-take neo-hominidus-ignoramus-supremous. duh! 😛

      5. LRH? Yep, he put together a whole bunch of pretty astute theories, and developed Axioms upon which he based his Auditing technology. If applied as described and taught, the revelations could be enlightening, and life changing.
      And certainly provided a platform for one’s own independent exploration/s. Though this did not sit well with the latter molding/evaluation/mind controlling of the upper echelons of his Route to Total Freedom. As we have latterly discovered, much of the ‘mystery’ that was to be uncovered on ‘the next level’ — simply wasn’t. 😦

      Still, we owe a great deal to all the work done by those who have contributed greatly to our present day opportunity to explore our potential to understand existence and our primary BE-ingness behind the curtain of ‘mystery’

      How dat 2c? 🙂

      1. In my view the universe is neither created nor not created. To assert that the universe is created is an erroneous assumption.

        1. The universe is continually created. It has observable qualities that serve observable purposes. It has recognizable architecture and aesthetics, therefore we can safely and reliably assume it was built, and built for a purpose – all of its components, as well as the whole.

            1. Yeah – but how did it come to be a mostly understandable system of function and form and observable laws and patterns?

              I do admit that creation ran into natural limits that are “just there.”

              I don’t agree with Hubbard (PDC) saying that you can make it anyway you postulate. No-sir, it don’t work that way. In your own “universe” (mental multi-verse) yes. And maybe – just maybe – you can tuck things away in a “4th dimension,” but only so far as it can and will be perceived by others – not much.

              Things don’t occupy the same position in space, for example, in any real universe. The way they have to hold together and interact keeps creation within limits of natural laws that just ‘are’ – nothing to do with postulates and not even postulated by a supreme being. “Let there be light” only works if light is possible as a quality in the nature of pre-existing existence.

              As expressed elsewhere, the universe to hand presents a nearly unlimited range of possibilities, but is not by its very nature, “infinite” – this is also reflected in “creation” – in the nearly infinite, but still limited, range of choices of how things interact and work together under natural law.

              The very essence and very nature of the physical universe is “FINITE.”

      2. Nice summary.

        Yes, without LRH’s groundwork I’d still be plugging away on some roof with a nailgun (not that that is such a bad thing…) a mere shadow of the super-philosophical-intellectual I have become (LOL – a slight exaggeration for humor’s sake).

        Would that the flaws in said axioms were detected, corrected and better clarified, for the launching of a much more accurate projection into the stratosphere… (One tiny error of initial navigation can magnify into missing the target by a mile and pretty much did, in said subject…)

        Still the ride was often comfortable, and the crash, well, we survived it – (those that bailed, anyway…) Now positioned as we are, on much higher ground from which to launch anew…

        Those that didn’t bail while they had the chance? Pity those – they stayed behind to count the money and statistics and square-footage of shiny buildings – expendable pirates with shovels for their own graves, who will not be permitted to live to tell where the treasure is really buried.

        1. Yes, Scott. “…without LRH’s groundwork I’d still be plugging away…”

          Your above comment is a very accurate synopsis of the entire game, in which we willingly participated, believing it to be a complete and accurate account of the factual history of our existence! 🙂

          The suspicion that we were in fact, ‘being had’, was, of course, heavily suppressed, so as not to have “the crash” (feared) displace our (untrue) stable datum, that LRH had heroically “mapped the route out of the trap”, for the likes of thee ‘n me to follow.

          Ironically, LRH himself, had pointed out that (paraphrased); “a stable datum does not have to be TRUE, to be effective. it merely serves as a stablizing point, to keep the entire situation from continuing to be in a confusion.”

          Still above all, I have kept an enormous number of ‘tools’ which I still find incredibly accurate and useful, in handling problems and (especially) “problem people” 😀
          Yup, I still haul them out regularly from my battered and dented “racing’s toolbox”
          Things still get fixed when (as YOU know TOO well) you take the trouble to make yourself an ‘expert’, in using the appropriate tools! 🙂

          Yep, needless to say, I continue to regard the Ol’ man with fondness, despite his now much publicized “less than honorable” reputation.(of which I had no knowledge or experience), during my tenure. 🙂

  17. I like to think about hard to understand but observable events in just that way, that I do not understand them. It is sometimes a strain but like breaking in new spectacles, I get used to it.

  18. I like the thought provoking quality of the OP. One ability that I like to think that I’ve gained from leaving Scientology is a moving away from certainty as an ideology. One benefit that I’ve gained from moving nearer to science is the “faith” that things can eventually be explained.

    1. One thing I’ve gotten from this thread.

      It’s not the “infinite” and “finite” issue.

      It’s that we really CAN’T serve our cake to others and eat it all too.

      “Self nature is mysteriously profound. Not giving rise to extinction is called ‘not killing’.”

      – Bodhidharma

    2. Bodhidharma’s Precepts on Self

      1. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the everlasting Dharma, not raising the view of extinction is called “not killing.”

      2. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the ungraspable Dharma, not arousing the thought of gain is called “not stealing.”

      3. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of nonattachment, not raising the view of attachment is called “not being greedy.”

      4. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the inexplicable Dharma, not expounding a word is called “not lying.”

      5. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the intrinsically pure Dharma, not arousing ignorance is called “not being intoxicated.”

      6. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the faultless Dharma, not talking about sins and mistakes is called “not talking about others’ faults and errors.”

      7. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of equality, not talking about self and others is called “not elevating oneself and putting down others.”

      8. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the genuine, all pervading Dharma, not clinging to one single thing is called “not being stingy.”

      9. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of no-self, not contriving a reality of self is called “not being angry.”

      10. Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous; in the Dharma of oneness, not raising a distinction between Buddhas and beings is called “not slandering the Three Treasures.”

      1. These are the tautologies which I have grown to love. I revel in the circularity. “. . . inconceivably wondrous . . . ” Has of course now become conceivable. But the feeling of wonder is real enough and I do so love it. “Right living” has become for me the causative assignation of importances in my life so that I may fire my own brain to enjoy even the simplest wonders.

  19. The universe seems to have a boundary even when it is considered to be infinite. This is because there is a limit to what one can be aware of. Thus one’s awareness seems to establish a boundary beyond which there is non-awareness.

    This boundary is very likely made up of decreasing awareness of what is there. These gradients of decreasing awareness ultimately disappear into non-awareness.

    We may assume the shape of this boundary of awareness to be spherical or close to being spherical. As the outer form of awareness is light, we may assume this outer boundary to be made up of light, which encloses the universe.

    In any case, the surface of the universe, thus created by awareness and light, is most likely to be curved and having a convex appearance. This means that light or EMR at the boundary must curve onto itself. We suppose that light travels in straight lines, but it seems possible that light has a curvature even when it is imperceptible.

    It is conjectured that as the frequency of EMR increases, its curves upon itself more sharply. Thus, it may be postulated that the volume enclosed by EMR decreases, and the density increases, with increasing frequency.

    The electronic shells in an atom and its nucleus may ultimately be the result of this condensation of EMR.

    When the EMR curves upon itself it also seems to lock up as a “standing wave.” This gives rise to quantum levels, as visible in the electronic shells of an atom.

    1. Now you’re making perfect sense. It is a much better way of putting what I tried to state somewhere earlier. Einsteinian and Quantum theory states this (the curvature of space and light) but here you are amplifying the concept well (or drawing on the amplified concept – either way, all good).

      Vinay you constantly amaze me in two very extremely different ways. (It is a post like this that exonerates you from teaching the ‘other’ way… hehehehahahateeheehee…)

      There must be -some- mathematics that expresses how infinity can never be reached, yet can be approached and thereby approximately quantified (i.e. number of beings in the universe; number of angels on a pin (old argument – new joke); distance light and matter can go; etc. (Someone solve the limits of the universe, please!)

      1. The word “infinite” means “no limit” or “undefined”. There is no limit or definition to be reached.

        If there are 5 pennies on the table, how may times can you take 0 penny out of them? This is the visualization of 5 divided by 0. The answer is undefined..

        “Infinite” does not necessarily mean a very large number. It means “no limit” or “undefined”.

        1. That does makes it a little closer to what I am looking for…

          I can see what I am looking for on those calculus curves – approaching but never touching… I am sure the expression of it is just a calculus formula away…

          (Oh, do I have to learn calculus all over again???)

          Perhaps it -is- something simple like “infinity divided by zero”…

  20. Thanks for writing this down.
    As a maths student I often see pseudo arguments about infinity, exactly like “If it is infinite, everything must be in it”.
    This is just not a valid conclusion (though you could add additional requirements to make it one) as you pointed out correctly.

    Just a small comment: Its not very clear what you mean by “the universe is infinite”. There are indeed more thinkable (not necessary sensible) possibilities.
    It could be like a ball – similar to earth (just with one dimension more), where you can go in any direction without ever comming to an edge, but still finite in a sense.
    Or it could be like the R^3 (what most peaple mean with infinite), just space and space in every direction.
    It could a torus, it could be finite in one direction and infinite in the others, or it could be manifold of any shape. Or it really is finite like a goldfish bowl, where you bump against an edege when you go to far.

    I loved yoour article.

  21. Well, you might 1st ask: Is the universe? before asking whether it is infinite or not 🙂 It’s really just a creation of consciousness. Purely postulates.

    Really like that Hagelin video Marildi. Glad you’ve found Mooji & Rupert, two very cool dudes. Rupert’s “Nature of Consciousness” video on utube is very good.

    1. Hi freebeeing. Glad you liked the Hagelin video! The Rupert vid you recommended was very good too. I guess he would answer your question – “Is the Universe?” – with a “no.” But he actually says “yes” when he talks about objective reality being simply a modulation of consciousness, which is how I see it myself.

      On the subject of non-dualism, are you familiar with Tony Parsons? He’s the other one I’ve watched on youtube – another Brit. It’s interesting how each of the three, those two and Mooji, teaches in his own very unique way – both style and substance. So far, I think I like Mooji the best. He has the best TRs! It’s amazing how many professionals who excel in their field could benefit greatly by understanding the “reality” of communication laws in this “universe.” 😉

      1. Yes, I’ve watched Tony. He’s a hoot. I don’t find him a very useful teacher though. I also like Adyashanti very much. I started with Mooji and he remains my most favorite. His Buddha at the Gas Pump interview was very interesting if you haven’t seen it yet. I try to catch all his Sunday Satsangs.

        1. Thanks for telling me about the interview of Mooji on Buddha at the Gas Pump. I’ll watch it first chance. Are his Sunday Satsangs on his website?

          I agree that Tony is a hoot. But he comes out with some amazing notions! There’s a short article on the home page of his website, titled “The Open Secret” (which is also the title of his book). Here’s a paragraph from it [emphasis in caps is mine]:

          “Should the apparent seeker meet with a perception which reveals in great depth the real nature of separation and also exposes, without compromise, the sublime futility of seeking, there can be A COLLAPSE OF THE CONSTRUCT OF THE SEPARATE SELF. That totally impersonal message carries with it a boundless energy into which the seemingly CONTRACTED energy of self unfolds. A resonance can arise which is beyond self awareness . . . something ineffable can be sensed . . . a fragrance and an opening to the wonder of unknowing can emerge.”

          I have the idea that this “construct of the separate self” is an energy manifestation – what Hubbard called a “valence,” meaning one’s own or another’s personality. Here are a few applicable definitions from the tech dictionary:

          VALENCE, 1. a valence is an identity complete with bank mass or mental image picture mass of somebody other than the identity selected by oneself. In other words, what we usually mean by valence is somebody else’s identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10) … 3. a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence … (SOS, p. 106). … 6. the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage except in life one doesn’t usually assume them knowingly. (5707C17) … 9. the form and identity of the preclear or another, the beingness. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)

          Now, if there are processes or a rundown to handle valences, we might just have a direct route to liberation!

          1. Yes, you can get to them from They are on a different site.

            The separate self — it is comprised of a package of thoughts so yes the definitions of valence are apt.

            It has been my observation that people are in a compulsive games condition and that is why they find it so difficult to drop the ‘ego’ (aka separate self) — TROM is what I am doing to address ‘mind’. Mind IMO is the barrier to ‘enlightenment’. There are “valence splitting” processes in Scn, How effective they might be in this regard I cannot say as they are not really intended to split off the person’s own valence.

            It has become more and more evident to me that the concept of a spiritual being (thetan) is a flawed one. I had a lovely chat with Elizabeth last night about these things

            1. Oh wow, freebeeing, that interview of Mooji on “Buddha at the Gas Pump” was the best! It’s a very good thing that each teacher has his own style of teaching, because different approaches appeal to different people. What most appeals to me is the beingness of the teacher – and this is where Mooji really shines. I love his laugh too!

              I also resonate with his views. On the subject you brought up of “the concept of a spiritual being (thetan),” I liked what Mooji had to say about it, starting at about 1:29:30 and continuing for the next several minutes. He says that people can manifest on several levels during their life as well as after they “drop their body” (yes, he used that phrase!). At about 1:30:45 the interviewer says that in some circles there is the attitude that no “entity” whatsoever exists, even during a life, let alone after the body drops – and Mooji rejects that idea pretty strongly. Check it out:

            2. Glad you liked it. Yes, I reviewed what Mooji said. What I can say from my 30+ years of involvement in Scn is that I can see that there is a definite misconception involved which leads one to becoming more and more egoic. Rather than focusing on the ‘static’ or Truth if you will, there is instead a building up of strong “super-human”-ness ego concepts in the “doctrines”.

              In the end it is up to each to find out by actual experience. No thinking about such matters will bring about ultimate Knowing. As much as I want to understand it all, I recognize that It is something beyond mind.

            3. “What I can say from my 30+ years of involvement in Scn is that I can see that there is a definite misconception involved which leads one to becoming more and more egoic. Rather than focusing on the ‘static’ or Truth if you will, there is instead a building up of strong ‘super-human’-ness ego concepts in the ‘doctrine’.”

              Too true. But in fairness, I’m reminded of what Mooji said in that video with regard to speaking to each person according to what they are capable of understanding. I think Ron tried to do the same thing – speak to the different reality levels. Of course, reges grossly embellished his words…

              Which doctrine concepts are you particularly thinking of?

            4. Sure the registrars used his quotes, but he uttered them. What doctrines… well one come to mind off the top of me head about “picking your teeth with the Chrysler building”. The Free Being lecture was well populated with them. There were countless times he talked about the powers of an OT e.g. HCOB OT Maxims. Godlike power with human ego. Very ego-boosting carrots to dangle in front of us.

            5. “Godlike power with human ego. Very ego-boosting carrots to dangle in front of us.”

              Somehow I really never looked at it that way. I was only aware of the stated EPs for each service and the fact that none of them said anything like “picking your teeth with the Chrysler building” – even if the reges said such things, directly or indirectly.

              I don’t feel resentful towards LRH for what he didn’t achieve, just appreciative for what he did. True, he didn’t deliver what he “more or less” promised, but to me that seems so academic in relation to what he contributed. And the spin-offs like TROM owe him a lot, wouldn’t you agree? Regardless, as far as I know none of us has ever been able to change anybody else’s mind on the subject of LRH!

              As regards descriptions of OT, did you see that I posted a reply to you yesterday on the current blog post thread? I happened to notice that it didn’t register at first on the “Recent comments” list – in which case you may not have gotten an email notification of it. I’ve seen that kind of thing happen on WordPress blogs occasionally. In any case, in my reply was an excerpt from a tape that also talked about ultimate OT ability, specifically in relation to what you had commented on. So, in case you didn’t see it, here’s the link for that reply to you:

              I also wrote a comment to Geir, and in it I posted another excerpt from the same tape that I quoted in my reply to you. Oh, and you got a reply from David Cooke too, in case you haven’t seen that either.

  22. I’ve got this personal phenomena going on and on for years now. I have an “atomic” clock next to my bed and it has a little projector on top which shines the time of day and alternately the outside temperature onto the ceiling above my bed. I turn the clock away as it is too bright but the little projection on the ceiling shows me the outside temperature for 5 seconds and then the time of day for 5 seconds and so on back and forth to the temperature then the time.

    The phenomena is this: When it occurs for me to wonder at the time, I turn to the ceiling where 100% of the time it is displaying the temperature. Within 5 seconds of the inception of that thought to wonder at the time, the temperature which is always displaying first then changes to displaying the time of day, and so on it goes.

    How can I come to understand the reason for my clock displaying the temperature to me first, — first every time?

    1. Chris, I meant for the Tom Campbell video I just posted to come under your comment above, but it was a pretty indirect reply at best. Now I remember a blog post of Marty’s on the topic of presentiment. Here’s a quote from it:

      “More than thirty years of research has demonstrated rather conclusively that the average human being when connected to a galvanic skin response detection device (generic name for a Hubbard Electro-psychometer) routinely registers presentiment of about five seconds. That is, the meter reads on average 5 SECONDS PRIOR [my caps] to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to. This research has been performed on people taken off the street, with no previous psychic or spiritual training or study. It has been conducted applying exacting scientific standards.”

      The above might relate to the phenomenon you described – along with your psi ability.

      1. Thanks Marildi. I read Marty’s post and I think I understand the word presentiment. To the degree that I do understand it, my phenomena as described above is absent any feeling of premonition or precognition. I simply wake and look to see the time, just like we all do several times per day. The only odd thing about it to me is that the temperature presents first and then the time. It has gone on so long and I haven’t been or maybe never mentioned it because I assumed that it was a 50/50 chance occurrence which if I left it alone would even out, but it hasn’t. I will watch that Tom Campbell clip and report back.

    1. Well, yes. I see what you mean. In this video, T Campbell presents the same metaphor of reality that Hubbard and others have presented. Namely that we are in a fantasy role playing game with inviolable rules. Hubbard presented that one could learn the rules of the game and come to an understanding of the game to such a degree that one could then “successfully disagree” with those rules and that in a nutshell is the supposed increasing “State of OT.” It is a nice idea.

      So back to my little clock and temperature problem. I am unaware of attempting to address the order in which these two data are presented to me in any way. It didn’t even seem peculiar to me until after the first couple dozen times that it occurred in the temperature first and time of day second ordering.

      That I say it is occurring is not helping me. If it is occurring consistently as I say it is, is not helping me. If I set it up intentionally, which one would I present first? I would say the time of day as that is the one I check most frequently. And yet it doesn’t.

      Oh, and being the curmudgeon that I have become, I have to say I don’t believe the anecdote that Tom Campbell relates in this interview about the lottery numbers. Therefore, if anyone doesn’t want to believe my story either, well, that’s an apples to apples comparison, so I understand.

      1. The first thing in your anecdote that caught my attention was the coincidence of “5 seconds.” In other words, presentiment experiments indicate that a person somehow knows what will happen 5 seconds before it does – and your clock shows the time and temperature each for 5 seconds.

        Be that as it may, I would have to agree that it is very, very “odd” that the temperature consistently presents itself first. Tom Campbell and other spiritual teachers might say that you as an awareness-unit/consciousness-unit are being given a lesson – either by your own higher-consciousness/higher-self or else consciousness overall. Obviously, such teachers vary in their constructs relating to consciousness, but they would probably all say (in different words) that you, like most Westerners, are too left-brained and distrust too greatly your own intuition.

        If it’s true that you are being given a lesson by “consciousness,” it does seem to be an odd one – but at the same time it may be tailored for just your unique set of beliefs and skepticism.

        Chris: “Oh, and being the curmudgeon that I have become, I have to say I don’t believe the anecdote that Tom Campbell relates in this interview about the lottery numbers.”

        Curmudgeon: “a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man.” LOL – I always get a kick out of your self-deprecating humor!

      2. Chris I fear you’re just one of those that runs on the alternative 5-second meta-skew factor of the underlying implicate order. Perhaps you should unplug the device, wait an appropriate interval and repower to bring it into alignment with your stream 😉 hehehe

            1. Good article at that link. Fascinating data about memory and how much it has to do with the brain – one type of memory, at least.

              Besides “time, place, for and event,” I think it also dovetails with what I learned on the NED Auditor Course – which is that not only the date but getting the location of an incident is a valid way to run it, as is getting the significance. These three – date, location and significance – would equate to time, place and form. And the event – defined as “outcome, issue, or result of anything” – would be the postulate in the incident. Once the postulate comes off, the incident erases as per the NED datum “Postulate off equals erasure.” Or, said the other way,the incident is as-ised, as per the definition of truth in that Axiom – i.e. time, place, form and event. Nice working with you, Val. 😀

    2. Tom Campbell: “That would ruin the game. There are rules that prohibit that sort of thing”

      Yes and the psychic subscribed to those rules. If not then he’d have won. But he picked the wrong numbers when he was actually buying the lottery ticket.

      So I would say this is a superficial look. As long as you subscribe to the rules, then of course you will not break them. When you revoke the subscription then… (all becomes possible.)

      Is it possible to revoke the subscription? Perhaps, but I have no idea of the level at which one would have to be to do so. And it is quite likely that when you were able to do so you wouldn’t have the slightest interest in winning a silly human lottery. I think it is possible, but clearly reaching such a level isn’t going to happen in the snap of the fingers or a few hundred hours holding e-meter cans.

      1. ” . . . I have no idea of the level at which one would have to be to do so. And it is quite likely that when you were able to do so you wouldn’t have the slightest interest in winning a silly human lottery.”

        Yes, that is just the circular reasoning we were taught in Scientology, The bank robber or prostitute would spend all the money they earned illicitly to audit out the reason that they robbed banks or whored. And I agree with you that a few hundred or thousand hours of holding soup cans won’t pierce the laws of physics.

  23. “Yes and the psychic subscribed to those rules. If not then he’d have won. But he picked the wrong numbers when he was actually buying the lottery ticket.”

    Well said. And having watched many of Tom’s videos, I think he would fully agree with that.

    Good post otherwise too.

      1. Hey Chris, good question. It might work the other way around from what we’d expect. I think of the all the people who discovered they had psychic powers and were shocked by it since, up to then, they had subscribed to the rules.

        I personally subscribe to the theory that what seems to be psychic or paranormal – in that it breaks the rules – doesn’t actually break them at all. The rules probably all boil down to phenomena of energy which isn’t yet fully understood. Even postulates can probably be explained in this way, such as what Watchful Navigator suggested as a possibility:

        “Do we have some influence on the spin? (Do we “load” the dice in interaction with extant potentials?)

        1. Hey Marildi, “The rules probably all boil down to phenomena of energy which isn’t yet fully understood.”

          That is a good statement of Chris’ belief system.

          1. Oh, wow. Now that you mention it, I think I did get the same idea from your comments. Cool. 🙂

            To amplify a bit, it seems to me (for now, at least) that the only “reality” that isn’t relative and perceivable/measurable in terms of energy manifestations (and the time and space context) is that of the “field of fields” – that is, the uncondensed or uncollapsed potential at the source of all energy. And that potential seems to equate to spirit/theta, which is static – right up until it isn’t, at the moment of “creation.”

            I suppose this goes beyond your belief system, though. 😉 Some of it is expressed and supported in the John Hagelin video I posted above. Have you watched it?

            1. @Marildi, Yes, thank you I did. It is fun to consider the great whole life swallowing questions. I think where we sometimes differ is where LRH invented the notion that he needed another subject than Dianetics (Scientology) to resolve the “mystery of Man.” (Needed to step outside the universe)

              For me, infinite or not, I consider the universe to be adequate to study and to try to understand without bowing to delusion as I consider LRH did to invent thetans and BTs, which are somehow in and somehow out of the universe. This mish-mash of his imagination not only isnt useful to me, I find it a long-winded distraction from really learning about the objective universe, something LRH never did more than brag about.

            2. “Except if the universe is consistent (and all evidence support this), then it cannot be all that is.”

              I do get the point of this. So for discussion purpose, the set which is Dianetics is declared consistent?

            3. Chris: “I think where we sometimes differ is where LRH invented the notion that he needed another subject than Dianetics (Scientology) to resolve the ‘mystery of Man.’ (Needed to step outside the universe).”

              You aren’t the only one who disagrees with those “notions,” but the idea of a “soul” is not singular to Scientology. And as for entities, if you google “removing psychic implants” you will get 362,000 results. There are a huge number of websites and blogs that are dedicated to this subject. A while back, I found a 2008 paper all about “attached spirits ” – meaning attached to the body. The title of the paper is “Depossession Healing: A Comparison of William Baldwin’s ‘Spirit Releasement Therapy’ and Dae Mo Nim’s Ancestor Liberation.” Here’s an excerpt:

              “Dr. Shakuntala Modi [a psychiatrist], who developed her own depossession techniques, gives the following description of one of her clinical sessions with a hypnotized patient named Dave:

              “’As Dave looked, he was surprised to see that he had many layers of these spirits still left in different parts of his body. He described these layers as thin layers of a pastry. He indicated having twelve layers in his brain, fifteen layers in his eyes, fifteen layers in his shoulders, four layers in his lower back and twenty-nine layers in his abdominal area. We requested angels of the Light to remove entities from each and every layer of his body. He described how the angels, very patiently and systematically, released the entities from each layer and helped them to the Light. Then the angels cleansed and healed those areas and filled and shielded them with the Light.’

              “Dr. William Baldwin, together with his wife Judith, developed their clinical depossession techniques, which he later termed Spirit Releasement Therapy, quite independently of Dae Mo Nim. For numerous reasons, it is safe to suggest that Baldwin and Dae Mo Nim had no knowledge of each other’s efforts. Yet, they arrived at stunningly similar understandings of the nature of attached, i.e., possessing, earthbound spirits, as well as of how their liberation can be effected.”

            4. “You aren’t the only one who disagrees with those “notions,” but the idea of a “soul” is not singular to Scientology.”

              I may not be asking my questions clearly. I do not object so much to soul as I do object to defining something as inside and outside The Universe. I do not know to what these prepositions refer. I think you can sympathize with that!

              My premise is that knowledge is only what is known (a tautology) and that knowledge is never other than Universe. Even one’s conjectures, theories, abstractions, etc., are held patterns within Universe. I could work on that some more to try and get my idea across if needed.

              And I haven’t even begun to touch on the rest of your post!

            5. Chris: “…I do object to defining something as inside and outside The Universe. I do not know to what these prepositions refer. I think you can sympathize with that!”

              Yes, I can sympathize with that – if you’re using the definition of “universe” that means everything in existence, both physical and non-physical. “The universe” does have that meaning, but in this context it would have to mean “the physical universe,” since it (universe) is being differentiated from that which is non-physical – i.e. theta.

              And in that case, the prepositions “inside” and “outside” would not have the literal meanings, because something that is inside or outside (of anything) would thus have location – and this would mean that it too is physical and therefore part of the physical universe. Whereas theta is non-physical.

              In other words, “inside and outside” in this context is just a metaphorical way of communicating the idea that theta is not physical – that is, it’s not part of the physical universe, as It can’t be located or measured in any way. Just go back to your “flogger of metaphors” way of thinking. 🙂

              Btw, Geir covered this point pretty thoroughly in his “On Will” article.

            6. “. . . if you’re using the definition of “universe” that means everything in existence, both physical and non-physical.”

              Generally, for the sake of these discussions, you can count on me to never refer to anything being non-physical, since I do not know what that means except in the imaginary sense. Now once I have imagined it, it becomes physical. It’s a simpler way for me to organize my thoughts (which are physical!).

              Years ago, when I was first arguing with Vinay, (and you thought I was great,) I used to argue my concept of Scientology static which was not physical, and I would routinely refer to that static as the only “thing” which isn’t “anything.” (You might remember.) Today, however, I’m trying to bring my thoughts together, unifying them under the broad category of physics, making physical universe a redundant statement. Do I think there are more physical dimensions (what other kind could there be?) that we operate in, are a part of, but are not aware of? Sure. But these are also physical. Ultimately we are arguing semantics which are bound by our phyical experiences. So if you want to write about thetans being outside the physical universe, I don’t mind. I get what you mean. I’m just not doing it because it doesn’t move my broader understanding along because I consider context to be the frame of reference that one can be “inside” or “outside.” If you want to understand my current world view, you will have to understand my ideas of context which are revealing.

            7. Interesting post, Chris. I might not be able to reply adequately until tomorrow night or Sunday, however (I have a guest from out of town, who’s here for the Thanksgiving holiday). In the meantime, if you have a chance, watch this video so that we can confirm that we’re on the same page as regards science as science, rather than science as just another religious dogma.

              Also in the meantime, can you expand on what you say here, if there’s more to it:

              “If you want to understand my current world view, you will have to understand my ideas of context which are revealing.”

            8. “Interesting post, Chris. I might not be able to reply adequately until tomorrow night or Sunday . . .”

              No problem, same here. I hope you have been having a fun and renewing holiday.

            9. ” . . . so that we can confirm that we’re on the same page as regards science as science, rather than science as just another religious dogma.”

              To be clear, science is both a method for learning and the resulting knowledge sifted through and revealed through that process of learning. The Scientific Method is recursive. Knowledge gained by the scientific method is rarely considered complete but is discovered in parts (fractal). The recursive and iterative nature of the Scientific Method by definition is subject to its own method and therefore refinement. This is why science is not dogma.

              Though Hubbard pretended to be a scientist and though Scientology pretends to be scientific, it is and has always self-defined as religion. Its Axioms and Factors are dogma. If there had ever been any doubts or misunderstandings about this, in 1965 the “technical bulletin,” Keeping Scientology Working (KSW), self-defines itself as dogma. Once a person admits to any part of this, the foundational mystique of Scientology cracks and then the walls and then the roof.

              This is meant to both address your question and to flog my metaphors!

            10. “Also in the meantime, can you expand on what you say here, if there’s more to it: ‘If you want to understand my current world view, you will have to understand my ideas of context which are revealing.’ ”

              Worrying about absolute truth is a dead end. Truth is contextual. It is also emotional. Religious truth is truth out of context and implies absolutism. One way of looking at this would be to say that if we try to understand context, which is to say frame of reference, and if we try to understand how or in which frame of reference a truth can be true, then we begin to address fundamental understanding. That’s the direction in which Man should evolve to begin to get along with himself. We can apply this toward ourselves as well. As we review the ex-Scientologists being angry at themselves for “how could I have been so stupid?” It is better to say, “Well, that was then, that’s how I thought, but I see what happened and now I’ve changed my mind.” In this way, one can avoid bitterness toward oneself, one’s past “mistakes,” and cut oneself some slack. Said another way, “Scientology is true for a Scientologist.” But when that person leaves, or if a person is not a Scientologist, rather say an evangelical Christian, Scientology is definitely not true. Scientology as well as other religions preach absolutism. This is a tremendous mistake. Scientology doesn’t only preach absolutism, but together with its absolutist doctrine, it preaches many inconsistent and conflicting doctrines and the Scientologist within the purview of Scientology must carve up and compartmentalize his faith into all these contrary little codes of honor. It is the cognitive dissonance of it all that finally makes him leave, not his overts. Therefore, within the purview of Scientology, cognitive dissonance becomes an overt act. Scientology promotes itself as something which one can understand as opposed to say Christianity which promotes faith and the understanding that one cannot always understand God’s will. The closest Hubbard comes to this statement is in KSW where he states, “We will not speculate here why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank.” Hubbard then adds the “special message” to this saying, “THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER. WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT. NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.”

              This absolutist doctrine is in conflict with other Scientology doctrine, physics, and all worldviews outside the world of Scientology. It is not true outside the purview in which it is written. It true for the Scientologist but only for the Scientologist and it is a grave mistake.

            11. Chris, thanks for this well-written answer to my question. I can see you’ve given a lot of thought to the subject of truth! I’m not sure it you wanted to discuss Scientology or not, but let me know if you do and which aspects. In any case, I appreciate the comm. 🙂

            12. Yup! I got it. We can discuss of course but I’m kind of done with overarching solutions to life. I currently see life together with all that is in an organic way, budding and growing in every direction – everywhere. That is my view that i will chase. Going back to college in January because i have to learn more. There is such a lot to learn, and my weak education into extant knowledge is hindering my own growth. For instance, I cannot speak mathematics, the language of science. I don’t know if I can do the work, nor how far I will get, but it seems worth a try. And no, I do not believe in Yoda’s “Do or Do not, there is no try.” LOL!

            13. Wow, awesome about you going back to college! I’m looking forward to hearing how it goes. We can say we knew you when – and I’ll add that you owe it all to Scien…kidding! 😀

            14. It was an anti-fragile comment for me to make as my confidence to try is only just higher than it is low. But there’s my path and I must try. I’m not sure how much I am going to want to talk about it! We’ll see.

            15. Totally got it. Well done on the anti-fragility. And yes – follow your path. Just doing that is a great thing in itself.

              Wow, January is upon us. Have fun!’ 😉

            16. Happy Holidays to you too! And yes, we’ll stay in touch. 🙂

              I’m sure you’re going to be busy between now and January (me too!) but let’s try to complete the exchange on free will and the non-physical, at least intermittently. Good topics.

            17. And with this, your conclusion is bound to be that free will does not exist. And thus responsibility and accountability is an illusion.

            18. Not precisely, no. I claim only that free will is unnecessary to explain the cosmos and I claim that it is impossible to differentiate between a universe with freewill vs a universe of determinism. I, more than many, operate as though I do have free will. Possibly the difference in my free will vs the say Scientology type of free will, is the influence that I ascribe to it. I do not envision a god-like and magical freewill. I do promote the universe yet containing more undiscovered knowledge than all the knowledge which is currently known.

              For instance, if the serial killer who murdered the children in Norway responsible for his hard wiring? Yes, he is responsible or must be made out to be responsible for his crimes, but in the deeper sense was he able to avoid committing his crimes? I do not know the answer to this but I operate in concert with the rest of society in making him be responsible. That is the justice. But the ethics? To what degree does each person have control over his personal performance? You work with this in the A circle. You know that each person’s performance cannot be brought up the level of every other person’s performance. If they could, sports would become a draw. I think that free will is not free, neither does determinism predictably dictate what a person’s maximum performance can be.

            19. You are sidestepping my point. Your perception of free will is not the point. The point is that either free will exists or it does not. If it exists, then it cannot be bound by the laws of the physical universe. If it does not exist, then responsibility and accountability are illusory. Simple. Very simple. It is also a point that the laws of the physical universe cannot be all that influences the physical universe if those laws are consistent – and all scientific evidence support that these laws are indeed consistent.

            20. “And with this, your conclusion is bound to be that free will does not exist. And thus responsibility and accountability is an illusion.”

              In summation, because of the paradoxical quality of this argument of freewill vs determinism, I believe that we still have assumptions in place which are hidden, which skew this argument. I do not believe this is correctly framed as only just one vs the other.

            21. Then the burden is on you to provide anything else. It is very simple – either there is a possibility that there are apples in that sack of there isn’t. Likewise, either free will is possible or it is not. No need to complicate this with hand waving, red herrings or otherwise. If you believe there are other options, you need to provide them instead of resorting to hunches or beliefs, religious or otherwise 😛

            22. I allow there may be apples in that sack just as I allow that the God of Job may be firmly and sadistically in control of the world. I just do not believe it. And those apples? May not be apples. I’m trying not to assume too much. While being open to proof, I do not feel obliged to prove there is no god. I come across as deterministic because determinism is easy to see and to show. Free will as presented seems unnecessary and therefore I do not believe in it per say. I believe in free will as a place holder, as an abstraction until such a time when we understand its determinism better.

            23. This is the usual obfuscation of the simple through complexity. Having read numerous work on free will, determinism, randomity, et al… They all miss this simplest of points: Either free will can exist, or it can’t. All the notions and beliefs or religions or feelings and convoluted argumentation I have seen has not to this day attacked this simple question. It gets obscured by arguments on emergence or human conditions or “what about the person in a coma” or some such. All sidestepping this basic question. Do you have something to offer that is beyond all this?

            24. “All sidestepping this basic question. Do you have something to offer that is beyond all this?”

              Yes, I think my advice is summed up with release fixed ideas such as dead-end philosophical arguments, religions and such, open the mind to learning, and learn.

            25. I came across a viewpoint about free will that seems to make you both right. It’s a non-dualism point of view that Lester Levenson described. He says the only free will is to make the choice of either identifying with the body or with our unlimited self – which is a oneness with all. The body, per my understanding of Lester’s view, is the symbol of and equates to ego – and it is nothing but conditioning.

            26. Here’s a direct quote:

              “There is no free will in worldly living. However, there is a free will. The free will we have is to identify with the real Being that we are or to identify with the body. If you identify with the body, you’re in trouble. So the free will is one of identity. Knowing this, it makes life much easier; you don’t fight it. You aim for proper identity.”


              He further states that when we identify with our real Being, we don’t operate on stimulus-response but on intuitive knowingness.

            27. This is still reeking of complexity and at least one level below the simple question of: “Is free will possible?”

            28. What’s complex about it? Seems pretty simple to me: When a person identifies with the body/ego/mind (which are all the same thing) it means being under the influence of stimulus-response conditioning and therefore without free will. Free will is a potential that can only be realized by identifying with one’s true beingness – i.e. being One with all. Sages since ancient times have described this viewpoint of Oneness as the only absolute truth, and with Oneness comes true knowingness on which to base actual choice.

              The short answer is Yes. 🙂

            29. “The short answer is Yes. :)”

              Love it. We are all looking at similar data and all coming up with different conclusions. This is for me evidence of differing “abstractions.” Yes, there are real processes going on, but no, we do not all see the same pattern.

            30. “But according to your view, all of this is unavoidable :-):

              Touche’. The reason I think it is unavoidable is because we have never avoided it! Have we?

            31. I just finished reading Tom Cambell’s My Big TOE (should be my big tome) There is clearly more than just “the physical” going on. I agree with him on the overall picture, although as to this being a digital virtual universe computed by a consciousness computer I am not sure – however that is his model and does not necessarily have to be accepted. He definitely states that free will is ours and that our purpose is to enhance our consciousness (reduce its entropy) Consciousness is the bigger picture in which this universe resides. Therefore what is natural law in this universe does not imply that such law is applicable to consciousness, for consciousness made natural law (invented it or evolved it.) Free will resides with consciousness. If a particular fragment of that consciousness is dull then there will be very little exercise of free will and determinism will predominate. Those with more highly refined conscious awareness can exercise free will in more marked ways.

            32. “There is clearly more than just “the physical” going on.”

              I love it when we preface “the physical” with the word “just.” It’s as if there is nothing at all to understanding the physical, which is a given, and the actual problem of existence is to understand a presumed and untestable world. The conquering of which seems to be not 1 mm closer throughout the history of man. Whereas all the world that we enjoy is supported with technology which has actually been figured out and worked out and manufactured to a degree that it works like magic. Few of us reading here understand this world and if the power turned off, most of us reading would not be able to replicate it, but regardless, the really interesting things in life to consider are non-physical. (sigh)

            33. Hi, Freebeeing. Yes – Tom’s *My Big Toe* is definitely a tome! I purchased it a few years ago and read some of it, but the writing in that book is just too tedious for my likes. I do love his talks, though, and have watched many of his youtube vids. Anyway, well done on reading the whole book!

              And thanks for bringing up Tom Campbell in general. He’s a good resource on the subjects we’re on – free will and the non-physical and whether or not they exist.

            34. “This is still reeking of complexity and at least one level below the simple question of: “Is free will possible?””

              For now, I will answer, “No, not for me, not in the context of this discussion.”

            35. “He further states that when we identify with our real Being, we don’t operate on stimulus-response but on intuitive knowingness.”

              I’m not really big on intuitive knowingness. This is in the realm of talent, isn’t it? Each of us has intuitive knowingness but while I usually choose to follow my “gut instinct” I am not always correct, maybe 1/2 the time?

            36. A further point: If you believe that there is no free will, then it follows that you believe that responsibility and accountability are illusory, lest you manage to conduct some serious double-think.

            37. ” . . . lest you manage to conduct some serious double-think.”

              I am curious what you mean by double think. We must be responsible and accountable if we are to live together successfully. Is this in support of freewill or in support of determinism, or neither or both? Does the ant or honey bee have free will? Do they choose which flower to pick? The theist preaches that without gods man is without morals, rules, afterlife, and therefore without motivation to get along with others. Without God, “Why is it not fine to murder?” My answer is, “To get along.”

              This argument of freewill is playing out by saying that if the laws of physics are consistent, then they must be incomplete. Even if this argument is cogent, even if there is something more, and I believe there is, this does not necessarily follow that there is free will, does it? I do think that OT phenomena is illusory in the sense that it does not exist except in our imaginations. But I think of free will as an abstraction we conjure because of patterns of either-or choosing. Choices are being made, yes. Were they freely made? I don’t know but I don’t think so.

            38. If you don’t think so, then you do in fact also think that responsibility and accountability are illusory. As you clearly explain above. It is a good illustration of my point. Even though you do go on a roundabout with complexities here 🙂

            39. “– that is, it’s not part of the physical universe, as It can’t be located or measured in any way.”

              The reason that I have chosen the scientific path to understanding over that of religion, is that evolution of science, during our adult lives, has increasingly brought to our full view and use many things which we used to not be able to “measure in any way.” Science is more cogent and honest than religion.

            40. Marildi: “And as for entities, if you google “removing psychic implants” you will get 362,000 results.”

              Chris: “Santa Claus” About 54,600,000 results (0.47 seconds); “Easter Bunny” About 13,700,000 results (0.41 seconds); “Virgin Birth” About 10,700,000 results (0.39 seconds); “Flying Spaghetti Monster” About 757,000 results (0.39 seconds); “Body Thetans and You” About 84,700 results (0.33 seconds) I guess you are right. There really is something to this Googling thingy!

            41. Yeah, but you won’t find many therapists treating Santa Claus as something that actually exists.

              Can’t you do better than the logical fallacy of False Equivalence? 😛 😉

            42. “Yeah, but you won’t find many therapists treating Santa Claus as something that actually exists.”

              Neither will you find many therapists treating demonic possession. . . Or was that a false equivalence too?!?

  24. The universe is finite
    The universe is infinite
    The universe is “infinitely finite”

    Well…Geir…you forgot the last option: “The universe is a finitely infinite” 🙂 Consider it, please…:)

      1. What this post has gotten me to realize (as my own insight on truth) is that the subjective (“own universe”) is infinite and the physical universe is by its very definition (uni = 1) and nature (curvature of space and time), “finite” – approaching, but never arriving at, actual infinity.

        I think a new mathematical symbol and equation is needed to reflect this probability. The above mentioned x=y squared that graphs the “approaching infinity” is in the neighborhood of this same idea.

  25. Chris Thompson says:
    2015-11-25 AT 12:38
    “Except if the universe is consistent (and all evidence support this), then it cannot be all that is.”
    I do get the point of this. So for discussion purpose, the set which is Dianetics is declared consistent?

    Geir Isene says:
    2015-11-25 AT 12:52
    I hope not!

    Chris: My point was that to invoke Heisenberg’s Incompleteness to support Hubbard’s need to step outside the set of Dianetics to resolve Man, is to assert Dianetics is “consistent but incomplete.” (requiring Scientology) I don’t think this is a correct interpretation.

            1. “I do. And I wish I could think of which logical fallacy you’ve just committed. :D”

              Marildi to the rescue, trying valiantly to salvage these bits! You have really fine honed this ability. I can learn from that.

            2. In case you didn’t understand my sentence, “I learn from you too” was a straight line! 😉

            3. Except, there is nothing to get.Or not get. As anything you do is not up to you. There’s nothing you can do that is under your control. Not even the slightest possibility of you influencing anything ;-P

            4. “Except, there is nothing to get.Or not get. . .”

              I do not understand. We both look at a world of processes and you declare a state of free will and declare a state of determinism and there is no discernible difference between the operation of the two. You seem to see an argument while I am seeing a paradox. Now you force me back into the explanations that you called complex. I do not say that nothing is under my control. I say that control is quite limited in scope, maybe the way the computer which runs my car has a limited scope of control. I do not say, “You cannot move the ashtray with your mind and therefore there is no free will.” I don’t say that. I don’t think the subject is so simple or black and white. In fact, I think the paradox exploits the bogus nature of the argument.

            5. Seems I have not made my point clear enough. It goes like this ; if you do not believe that free will is possible, then it follows that you cannot believe you have free will and thus you are unable to control anything or be responsible for anything. All this control or accountability is therefore illusory, according to you. Please refute that argument with sound logic.

            6. “It goes like this ; if you do not believe that free will is possible, then it follows that you cannot believe you have free will and thus you are unable to control anything or be responsible for anything.”

              It doesn’t follow. “Anything” is a generalization that doesn’t apply to my opinion. I control and am responsible for several things. So is the computer which runs the operation of my automobile. I see a similarity in this. What I don’t see is a reason to make that control and responsibility more emotionally dramatic than it actually is. I have governing values (programming) that I do not have control over. Years ago, when in the Sea Org, I was enjoying my job, but the rearing of my daughter was being neglected. There never was a point where I was going to be able to ignore that governing value = no free will. There seemed to be a parenting choice on the surface, but really there wasn’t. I can think of more examples that describe my opinion. I would destroy a mad dog, but I do not think the mad dog is bad nor does he have a choice over his rabies. I hold the dog “accountable” even though he not “responsible” for his disease. That’s not only how I have been conditioned, it seems to be a part of my hardware. Being a cop would not be a fit job for me. Neither being a politician. I wouldn’t last even considering if I wanted to. Maybe you sometimes counsel people in a line of work that they are not a good fit. Does that happen? We say they are “off purpose” but what then do we mean by purpose? Who decides that? I think we have basic predilections for which we are wired and are fit both physically and mentally. Possibly from birth. Sometimes I think we waste time wishing we “had been a contender” rather than seeing how we can be happy in the life we filter into. I wonder at the honey bee and I wonder if there is contention between the bees within the hive. Does a bee have free will? How much? In what way? Tomorrow is a work day and I’ll go do my work just as though it’s what I would choose if I had a choice. Whether I do or not, tomorrow I will make a bunch of choices and the day will turn out as though I had free will.

            7. “Not even the slightest possibility of you influencing anything ;-P”

              You know the kind of queer effect for me is that I experience both a “freeing effect” and a “loading of responsibility effect” because of this view that I’m trying to describe.

            8. Except those feelings are illusory and beyond anything you control, simply because you have no saying or choice in these or any other matter, according to the belief you say you have.

            9. “Except those feelings are illusory and beyond anything you control, simply because you have no saying or choice in these or any other matter, according to the belief you say you have.”

              I think we are having an discussion not only about freewill v determinism but also of whether there is a “red pill” at all. I don’t think so. Scientology was supposed to be that red pill but it wasn’t. I like the metaphor but don’t believe in the red pill. I just believe in trying to get along and doing what good that I can. Not because I believe in free will but because I just seem to be wired that way. I admit that I can be wrong about this. But again with the Missouri slogan, “show me.”

            10. I am trying as fast as I can. But – I am up agains a brick wall, and it’s middle name is Chris. And he is adamant to retain his position, even using logical fallacies (as in the Dianetics exapmle). I am not talking about Dianetics or Scientology or Hubbard or any of that. I left all that. I am talking about simple logic. Very, very simple logic. And you have not offered any counter arguments to my points. And thus I see this discussion as futile. But, on the jolly side, you have shown me where I have to improve my communication with someone who believe they have no control over their choices – even as they enter a discussion.

            11. “I have to improve my communication with someone who believe they have no control over their choices – even as they enter a discussion.” Whether I have free will or not, I act as though I do even though I routinely don’t. So will everyone else on here to the degree that they can. I have worked and work with a lot of people who seem not to have much free will (power of choice), even over little things like getting up in the morning or showing up for an appointment. I’m into the discussion because it is interesting to me. The argument won’t resolve because of the absolute way you are framing the discussion. “Free will or not free will” “Choice or no choice” “Do or don’t do (Yoda)” How far and how deeply do you think your free will penetrates? And penetrates what? Maybe I don’t have free will enough and can’t change my mind. Regardless, I just don’t agree with it being so clear nor simple.

            12. I will try this One more time and make it really simple. Please acknowledge or logically refute every single line:

              * If free will cannot exist
              * Then free will is an apparency
              * Then responsibility and accountability are illusory
              * No matter what anyone may feel

            13. Chris: “How far and how deeply do you think your free will penetrates? And penetrates what? Maybe I don’t have free will enough and can’t change my mind. Regardless, I just don’t agree with it being so clear nor simple.”

              I think Geir is mainly asking if you think free will is POSSIBLE. But you have a point about it not being a simple question – unless we clarify exactly what is meant by free will. Tom Campbell – physicist and consciousness researcher (using scientific protocol, mind you) – in about five minutes or so in this video, clarifies what is meant by free will. Go to around 102:20, where he talks about what he calls a person’s “decision space” – which is what free will is determined by. After that he goes into the subject of determinism for a few more minutes – I think you might find interesting.

        1. I can’t understand it either. What does Dianetics have to do with this? it just seemed non-sequitur when I read it. My take was: huh?

          1. “I can’t understand it either. What does Dianetics have to do with this? it just seemed non-sequitur when I read it. My take was: huh?”

            Geir invoked Heisenberg’s Uncertainty to prove freewill. I didn’t agree with that application of it. I forget the precise sequence of the discussion above, but in a nutshell, Hubbard said that he could no longer unravel man using (the set) Dianetics alone and that he had isolated the spirit of man, “outside” the physical universe, in the form of Scientology to resolve the spiritual problems which were senior to the mental problems. I didn’t agree with Hubbard’s premise of in and out of the physical universe, and we were off to the races. I asked Geir if Heisenberg’s Incompleteness proved Dianetics consistent because of having to go “outside” the set of Dianetics into Scientology to resolve the problems of Dianetics. Heisenberg proved that a mathematical set cannot be both consistent and complete. Geir applies this to the “physical” universe and physical laws saying they are consistent and therefore incomplete, inferring (proving?) there is something more “outside” the physical universe. I’m just a nasty disagreeable person and so to pour gas on the fire – disagreed with that application because we operate from such a tiny sliver of the physical-universe that it’s early in the game to declare our knowledge consistent. I think. Is that any better?

            1. The problem with your reasoning and example here, Chris is this: That something seems inconsistent does not make it complete – and that something is incomplete does not make it consistent. Things can be BOTH inconsistent and incomplete, though not BOTH consistent and complete. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems only applies to axiomatic systems that are capable of at least simple arithmetics – like the physical universe with its axioms (and having mathematics as a sub-system). Therefore – the physical universe, if CONSISTENT cannot also be ALL THERE IS. And as I have said a couple of times – all evidence support the consistency of the physical universe laws. And if they were not consistent, there would be no way to make them consistent if the universe is indeed all there is. Get it?

            2. “Get it?”

              Yup, I always got that. I always understood that’s what you meant. I can agree with your premise if I could agree with your application. We are dozens of orders of magnitude of observation away from observing “all there is.” It’s early to make these declarations. Wait for it.

            3. Then you do not understand my point. I will leave it at that and work on how to improve the presentation of my points.

            4. Chris: “We are dozens of orders of magnitude of observation away from observing ‘all there is.’”

              This is a good point when you consider that there may be physical explanations for such things as telepathy and physical inheritance. As for the latter, apparently chimpanzees have the same set of chromosomes as humans, and it is theorized by Rupert Sheldrake and others that there are “morphic” fields which bring about an organism’s traits. These morphic fields may or may not be physical according to our current physics.

            5. “This is a good point when you consider that there may be physical explanations for such things as telepathy and physical inheritance.” That is a large of part of my point. There is plenty of room in the universe for every question to have an answer. We don’t have to imagine farther than that. I think I get frustrated at the brush off that the sciences get outside the field of science. If “everybody knows” always described things that everybody did know, then I wouldn’t bristle.

            6. And if scientists weren’t so dogmatized themselves about investigating paranormal events then I wouldn’t bristle so much either 😉

            7. “And if scientists weren’t so dogmatized themselves about investigating paranormal events then I wouldn’t bristle so much either ;)”

              Which ones would you like them to see? A scientist spends his life methodically studying things. Besmirching that dedicated and purposeful life with a strawman argument seems unfair to me.

  26. First this: “In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. (

    Then – we often talk about scientologists experiencing a cognitive dissonance when they know that they are pegged in by the church (their freedom is controlled by the CoS) while they maintain that their freedom continues to grow. Or, they are experiencing less happiness but act as though they are happier than ever.

    An even worse dissonance would be to hold the belief that there cannot be any possibility of free will – it simply cannot exist – while continuing to act as though free will does exist. Knowing that you have no saying in the actions that you conduct while trying to maintain that a person is accountable for his or her acts. Now that is cognitive dissonance at a whole new level.

    To iron out such a mental conundrum would be to either fall down on the side of the fence where one admits that there cannot be any free will and act accordingly. Or admit that there is free will and also here act accordingy. The main point would be to act according to one’s beliefs to unravel any cognitive dissonance.

    1. Thanks for hanging in there, Geir! 🙂 Thanks also to Marildi, & Chris.:)

      Nothing seems to fuel debate more than “being right”, hey? It’s a pretty “loaded” topic, it seems. And of course, how could IT be otherwise? It’s all apparently bound up in SURVIVAL, or so we’re told.

      The more convinced, the more robust the debate. Sorry guys, I have to admit I don’t bother to tie up energy in this wise, any longer. I just let ’em “be right” with their respective # view/s cause that’s what # they are.

      Perhaps this may seem a flippant assumption on my part. >You could spot the ‘cognitive dissonance’ arising in any situation where an individual remains stuck/fixed/clinging to a SITUATION/PROBLEM.

      To assert the shift required to ‘unravel’, may merely require that one WILLFULLY shift the VIEW, (of situation/problem) to the other side of the fence/coin.

      This regaining of a person’s WILLINGNESS to occupy any view(point) at will, was thoroughly established pretty early on by the Ol’ man and in fact, was nicely and neatly resolved under FACTOR 28; among a further assortment of The Q’s, Consideration And Mechanics, Logics and Axioms, too.

      These tried and trusted tools for evaluative overviews are there for use, ya know?

      If the ability to shift ones view seems to pressure one into being ‘wrong’, then here’s a nice little ‘one-liner’ that makes the point pretty kindly, instead. 🙂

      “Whether you think you CAN, or whether you think you CAN’T — you’re RIGHT! 😀

      — Henry Ford.

      1. “The more convinced, the more robust the debate. Sorry guys, I have to admit I don’t bother to tie up energy in this wise, any longer. I just let ’em “be right” with their respective # view/s cause that’s what # they are.”

        Calvin, honey, isn’t that viewpoint of yours also being right? 😀 Personally, I think discussion is very beneficial. 😛

        1. On the contrary, me heart. If you care to look over the post with a microscope, there is not a shred of suggestion there, of my attempting to be ‘so’ Therein lies the clue, Sue. Just being willing to move into the shoes (shoeniverse) of how the ‘other’ may see/feel about the situation, would be a method to experience that

          Being willing to be ‘wrong’ too, is no more, nor less than adopting a viewpoint!

          The (wilful) removal of the FEAR of being / or being MADE wrong, is the essence of what I tried to convey in in the above response.

          I see people having an awfully hard time trying to do this. It does get easier with practice. And a non-chalant attitude plays its part here too, mon cherie, non? ❤

          You just let gooooo of seriousness…that it! And if that "right", or "wrong", by you, that's "cool" by me too! 😀

          1. “I see people having an awfully hard time trying to do this. It does get easier with practice.”

            Yes, we may yet be able to be just as superiorly right as you are. 😀


            1. “superiorly?” — Gee hon, that’s your view? ‘Pecking order’ in order? SHOULDN’T factor in to merely granting beingness, or more properly — “rightness.”

              — Should it?

              At our primary level, should any of this even matter? As-is-ness even get merit here at all?

              — However, at “games condition”, it sure does! (matter.) 😀

            2. “‘superiorly?’ — Gee hon, that’s your view? ‘Pecking order’ in order?”

              Not at all my view.. I was being sarcastic. 😛

              You were evaluating others and advising them on what they should do about it, and how they will improve “with practice” – implying that you have risen above the level they’re at. Just take another look at your first post above, and you may see what I’m saying. And it’s not that I think you don’t mean well. I do. And you do. 😉

            3. Pot / Kettle ? LOL 😀 Enjoy the ‘seriousness’ of it all, will ya?? 😀

              pse be kind enough to post that Simply Red vid. “If you don’t know me by now…”

              Dere’s truth in dem dere words, doncha’ think, me ❤ ?

              T'enk yoo, for everyting! XXOO 😀

    2. Geir, the problem I see is that you are convinced there are only two possibilities – either belief in free will or disbelief in it. Thus, you want a yes or no and apparently won’t accept “I don’t know” as a valid answer – which is the honest answer Chris has been giving you.

      If he’s “guilty” of anything, it might be scientism, even though that is an absolutism – and absolutism is something he rejects.

      “Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”

      1. Not quite, Marildi. He didn’t say “I don’t know”. He clearly said that he Didn’t think free will is possible. Now on the question of something being possible or not, I don’t see any other answer than yes or no. Do you? “I don’t know” is not an answer to whether 1+1=2.

      2. I should add that regardless of Chris’ belief or bunch of knowing or doubt or my own, my point about cognitive dissonance stands. And I believe it is has merit.

        1. The part about cognitive dissonance does seem to have merit. But doesn’t Chris basically admit to that when he calls the whole subject a paradox?

          (Damn, I have to be away from my computer again, but will check back with you gents later.)

        2. As far as the potential of free will, I think that IF it exists, then it runs from the future toward the past outside of time. Free will would have to use the FUTURE to create the PAST – not the other way around.

          Much like editing the clips of a movie. The EXPERIENCE of the movie is not the summation of decisions that created the experience. All that happened outside the movie’s storyline.

          This has “some” experimental merit in the science done around quantum eraser showing that future events can change the past.

          All attempts at proving free will in neuroscience fail to show we have it when using our natural arrow of time. The decision to act always happens unconsciously long before the conscious mind is aware of the decision while it believes the experience that it MADE the decision.

          So IF the conscious mind can act and declare, it probably could only do so if it is done in the time line we consider as “backward.”

          And if Scientology’s Thetan can exist, it is in changing the backward images into fact. So IF that can be done.

          …. then … then …

          Xenu will actually be false today but true tomorrow and then false again by the late tomorrow afternoon …

          And what we THINK is our free will aint it at all.

          1. I see two structures of our experience of free will.

            OPTION 1:

            1. Geir’s logical bullet points given to Chris are right and right, and the conclusion is that we have no free will and we exist as a story.
            2. Strangely, our self structure in this story line WANTS something it cannot have (free will) but really doesn’t have the wanting, as it is illusory. For this example, let’s say it wants to live again as a fry cook at McDonalds, but doesn’t exist to postulate such a dream job. But it dreams about it and thinks it will happen someday.
            3. In another time stream a fry cook at McDonalds appears from cause and effect exactly as foreseen by the non-existent fry cook wanna be.

            OPTION 2:

            1. Geir’s logical bullet points given to Chris are right, and the conclusion is that we have no free will and we exist as a story IF NO FREE WILL EXISTS. But in this option let’s presume that we DO have free will.
            2. For this example, let’s say free will wants to live again as a fry cook at McDonalds, and free will exists to postulate such a dream job. So it dreams about it and thinks it will happen someday in another life.
            3. In another time stream a fry cook at McDonalds appears from cause exactly as postulated by the free-will fry cook wanna be.

            UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS: If both option are viable, can Option 1 Become Option 2? Can Option 2 Become Option 1? And do both exist in their own way? And can each choose the other: one from free will and one from determinism?

            Fuck it. I can choose to exist, and if I’m wrong there is no me to be responsible.

            1. Kat, I always enjoy the zany way you express your views. 🙂

              I agree with the idea that there’s no way to prove free will, or to prove no free will, if we consider (believe, assume) that “science alone can render truth about the world and reality” (quoted from the definition of “scientism” I posted above).

              About the only way to prove it – at least to oneself – would be by some other means of rendering truth. The way that people in every corner of the globe, since the dawn of history, have discovered truth – independent of one another, mind you – is by “direct perception.” That is to say, by a direct knowingness or intuition. And I believe that the direct knowingness of one’s own non-physical existence is the primary knowingness needed. 😉

            2. Oh, you missed a chance to pitch your beloved Factors my dear!

              My notions are not about observing or knowing. It’s the DECISION to be.

              It’s looking at the paradox of self and saying “So what if I cannot be certain of my own existence and free will?”

              “I CAN choose to be a soul paradox of free will anyway and care not if it is futile! Because if I’m not, there is no me to care!

              If there is no me responsible, then if I am still free to choose an impossible responsibility! And even delusional it’s not my fault because nobody is there to be at fault.

              A Pinocchio puppet can believe he’s a boy all he wants. And a Pinocchio human boy can believe he’s a boy all he wants.

            3. Wow, what a well-written – and original – philosophical piece. It communicated the paradox beautifully. (And skillfully – keep writing!)

              “Oh, you missed a chance to pitch your beloved Factors my dear!”

              But you see, dear Kat, along with the decision to be (Factor #2) there was a…Cause (Factor #1). This is why I say the primary search is for that – for thetan, soul, spirit, awareness, knowingness, free will (call it what you wish).

              I get that you’ve been searching for a while for this (years, that I know of 😉 ) – when all the time it’s right there with you, every moment: You; awareness.

              And it’s something you can experience – which is far more certain than mere reasoning. Forget looking in the mind or in the exterior world – go inside, young man. 😀

            4. My view of the soul is weirder than Hubbards. And I have no proof it is right and is my own religion, and a thing I keep to myself.

              The thing I think we can both agree on is that the ability to face ANYTHING is the best act of personal freedom.

            5. KG: “My view of the soul is weirder than Hubbard’s. And I have no proof it is right and is my own religion, and a thing I keep to myself.”

              Sorry – my mistake! I thought you didn’t believe in any kind of soul. That will teach me to evaluate and give advice! Which I usually protest – on any flow. 🙄

              The best thing (IMHO!) is that it’s your own view, your own religion. I would love to hear about it if you ever decide to share. For now, I’d be interested to hear what you think is “weird” about Hubbard’s idea of the soul, if you care to say.

              “The thing I think we can both agree on is that the ability to face ANYTHING is the best act of personal freedom.”

              That sounds a lot like what Hubbard wrote here: “A Clear, in an absolute sense, would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future.” (Abil Mag 56)

            6. I don’t think a soul exists AS FACT, but I have a mythology I enjoy and it is an unprovable tautology like all the others so really there is nothing new to really offer by discussing it.

              It’s bullshit. But it’s my bullshit. And mine alone. As Godell said … “Religions are bad but religion is not.”

              You see me use the capitalized word “IF” a lot in my posts about soul.

              It certainly can exist as a meat-dream-experience because … THIS POST.

              But you already agreed above that it cannot be proved beyond that, so we are in agreement there. We agree more than you may think.

              So we cannot BE certain.

              But we may FEEL certain.

              Or we may feel uncertain.

              For me, I seek to enjoy my own self experience as much as I can and radiate as much joy and love as possible in my relationships and improve the world quietly and deliberately.

            7. “For me, I seek to enjoy my own self experience as much as I can and radiate as much joy and love as possible in my relationships and improve the world quietly and deliberately.”

              I honestly don’t think anyone could ask more of you, or that you could ask more of yourself.

              No time to write more, so for now I’ll just say cheers, my friend. 🙂

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s