Middle Pane

absurdism, philosophy, science, music



Grow a Greater You (Law of Attraction) – Part 2

This is a post in a continuing series on applying the law of attraction using principles from quantum physics.  You should probably start here, but whatever floats your boat.  🙂

Chicago, It’s My Kind of Town

I arrived in Chicago on Friday morning.  I had never been there before so I wanted to see the sights, and hopefully catch up with Greg after his meeting with Laura Berman.  I landed and then took the blue line metro/L/train/whatever from O’Hare to downtown.  I switched to the Orange line to get off at the Field museum.  I decided to pack light and just carry my bag around with me and check it at the museum.  I like riding the metro over the bus.  I guess it feels more predictable to me.  Google maps is also pretty nice now for transit travel.  It shows you all of the stops up to the stop that you need to get off at.  However, it doesn’t update automatically like when driving a car.


Continue reading “Grow a Greater You (Law of Attraction) – Part 2”

Grow a Greater You (Law of Attraction) – Part 1

Law of Attraction

As part of researching pictures and links for my last post, I ran across a YouTube audio of Greg Kuhn reading part 5 of his book Why Quantum Physicists Create More Abundance.  The audio was about using the law of attraction and quantum physics.  I had watched The Secret on Netflix a couple of times and I am pretty interested in manifesting more abundance.  As I said in the original post, I would like to be in a position where I can take care of my family, friends, and give back to the world.  The Secret talked about these things being possible and creating a vision board to see your success, but it never really clicked with me.  It felt more like positive thinking to bring you what you want, and I never really believed that.

Greg explains the law of attraction with principles from quantum physics.  I had never really tied the two concepts together before, but it just made sense.  Everything exists in the quantum field as potential.  The quantum field delivers exactly what we expect, which may not be in alignment with what we desire.  This is the rub.  How do we get our expectations/beliefs to align with our desires?  How do we change our beliefs?

Continue reading “Grow a Greater You (Law of Attraction) – Part 1”

We are all perfect

To think different is to forget

Forget that we are part of one

That separation is an illusion

That everyone we meet is a mirror of ourselves

And of everyone else

Of how we see the world

And if everything is part of the same

How can anything not be perfect?

Matter has consciousness because we give it consciousness

It is our consciousness

Everything is consciousness or awareness

It exists because we exist

And we exist because it exists

Maybe it is time to stop questioning existence

And just exist

Continue reading “We are all perfect”

Are we real?

This BBC documentary is another “multiverse” explanation.  They start out with physics concepts putting emphasis on the cosmological constant and then move more into metaphysics (which you really have to do at some point).  The cosmological constant is specific out to 120 decimal places.  Einstein used this to describe energy density of the vacuum of space.  I won’t pretend to really understand what that means except it is key to a number of physics equations.  Anyway, even changing the 120th place of the number alters life as we know it.  If there are constants like this (pi, gravity, speed of light) then that seems to imply that something is setting that value.  The theory of the multiverse is used to side-step the notion of a creator by saying that all possibilities exist at the same time.  So there are universes that represent all possible values.  But then there has to be something that sort of lays it all out.

The issue I have is that if there is a simulator that can tune the variables and change the algorithms, then wouldn’t it at some point want to interact with the simulation once the simulation got to a certain point?  Or if there are simply multiple universes that represent all permutations of constants and algorithms, then wouldn’t there be a few that could break through the shell and contact the other universes?  The answer can always be “No, we are not one of the breakthrough universes” or “We are not mature enough yet”, but I have to say why.  We are manipulating the world around us at an unbelievable rate.  If we can dream it up, we can make it happen in the physical world.  All that growth seems to do nothing for how we treat our fellow human beings, so technological growth without compassion is useless.  If there is some sort of singularity event, we will all literally be connected and one.  How can something that is one fight with itself?  Insanity.

Forgetting all of the metaphysical multiverse, multiworld stuff, it is hard to deny that things happen from an individual’s own perspective.  This perspective is filtered through our senses which actually interact with the world.  The senses are interpreted by the brain and some sort of thought is formed.  That experience is unique, individual.  Yet there is an undercurrent of reality that the senses directly interact with or we are really interacting with everyone else’s experience.  Experience experiencing experience.


In philosophy, “the Absurd” refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean “logically impossible”, but rather “humanly impossible”.

Absurdism on the surface seems similar to Nihilism.  The distinction being that Nihilism says there isn’t meaning, while Absurdism says that there may be meaning, but it is humanly impossible to know meaning.  Man can search for meaning.  He may find it on a personal level, but meaning at the universal level is unknowable.  The death of the physical body represents a transcendence beyond which us inhabiting a physical body cannot know.  Anything that anyone says about transcendence of the physical while on the plane of the physical may be true, but there is no proof that you can hand to someone and say “this is it”.  So essentially, it is just hearsay and possibly fabrications of the mind.  This is my interpretation, not necessarily Camus‘.

They cut the rug that ties the room together

I temper that with it may just be our understanding of the physical that is limiting.  Do our preconceived notions of how the physical world behaves limit what we can accept?  If there was a breakthrough in quantum physics that changed the overall understanding of the universe, what would it mean?  If science shows that the physical world is interconnected in a provable way, then does that change the search for meaning?  I think that this goes to the point of absurdism that the quest can and probably must continue.

Tim Schreder

It all ends up just being labels of one thing or another.  And as long as there are labels, there is identification and separation.  I sometimes wonder if the ultimate teaching is no teaching.  I am agnostic in many of my viewpoints.  Not necessarily meaning that I don’t know or don’t want to know, but that it doesn’t really matter.  Even the quest for enlightenment is subject to question, and I can say that it does not necessarily need to occur.  Enlightenment can just happen.  Even saying that it can happen or is happening is applying a label.  Beneath the currents of perception lies a reality that just is without action or state.

The cogitations of one individual human are no more or less important than the sentience of an ocean, or the arc of a comet, or the afternoon dream of a sleeping Himalayan house cat. The quality and character may be different, but can the ideas of a man really be more essential than the blazing light of a sun? Our doings are exercises in conduct and growth. Specifics are irrelevant. It’s all yard work in the end.

I listened to this Avett Brothers song this morning.  It seems quite appropriate for this post.  Meanings are jumbled as always, but does the singer determine intent or the listener?

If you finally stop caring
Just don’t go and tell someone that does
Cause even though I know there’s hope in
Every morning song
I have to find that melody alone

We’re Already Dead (But That’s Okay)

A harmonic oscillator in classical mechanics (...When you compare yourself to others, you are automatically creating a separate self.  How can you be better or worse than anyone else if everyone else is a projection of your mind?  A collapse of the wave function causes all potentialities to go to a specific state.  Does the observer collapse the wave?  Or does it spontaneously decay into a specific state?  If it is spontaneous, then that implies that the observer is not in control.  The observer is merely the observer.  Or is it when the observer performs judgment or identification with the observed that the wave collapses?

The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.–one-of-the-m.html

The thought that whatever you think happens when you die is what happens is an intriguing one.  And if what I think happens is that when I die I go back and live all other parallel universes then that is what happens.  That is what is happening.  A series of higher dimensional deaths rising through all dimensions.  At all times remember that you are simultaneously on all layers in all possibilities.  All all times remember that you exist and do not exist simultaneously in all layers in all possibilities.  Or maybe it is best to just forget it all.

And what is considered death?  The death of attachment?  We continue on to the next thought based on perceived past and current situation.  We cling to that next thread in the story.  Certain events, like sleeping, meditation and death allow for a larger break in thought and a larger release from clinging.  This is the time of no-thought.  As the Wanderling points out below, no-thought is not absence of thought.  There is always thought.  No thought is the absence of thought within thought.  Since there are always thoughts, then any thoughts that I think that I am having are not the true thought itself, but thoughts within a thought.  Or if you like, thoughts about thought itself.

Those larger consciousness shattering events allow us a larger break with continued ego identification.  in the break and silence we spin through the higher dimensions rotating and landing in a different spot on the return.  The less we try to control ourselves in that spin the better.  As the Platform Sutra points out, once there is an identification, we are ego clinging to that line of thought and we cannot get out until the next break.  It is really even further, we cannot pull ourselves out until the next awareness of the break.  The good news is that we don’t have to wait until death or even sleep for a break.

The moment you realize you are not present, you **ARE** present. Whenever you are able to observe your mind, you are no longer trapped in it. Another factor has come in, something that is not of the mind: the witnessing presence.

Eckhart Tolle – The Power of Now

There does seem to be a pull to a specific line of thinking.  A line of thinking that makes this world and existence possible.  It is hard to deny that the reality that we are currently experiencing is one that has been identified as being important or useful for growth.  Otherwise we would just float around without any attachment.  I think that this is where the ego does come in handy and it helps provide a linkage between conscious and unconcious thought.

The Wanderling’s thoughts on Kensho and the “attainment” of no-thought:

The locus classicus for the concept of no-thought is the Platform Sutra, and in regards to no-thought says in so many words:

“No-thought” means “no-thought within thought.” Non-abiding is man’s original nature. Thoughts do not stop from moment to moment. The prior thought is succeeded in each moment by the subsequent thought, and thoughts continue one after another without cease. If, for one thought-moment, there is a break, the dharma-body separates from the physical body, and in the midst of successive thoughts there will be no attachment to any kind of matter. If, for one thought-moment, there is abiding, then there will be abiding in all successive thoughts, and this is called clinging. If, in regard to all matters there is no abiding from thought-moment to thought-moment, then there is no clinging. Non-abiding is the basis.

As we can see, after the break in thought, successive thoughts continue to flow, but one no longer abides in, or clings to, these thoughts. Nowhere is there mention of any kind of disappearance of, or absence of thought. “No-thought” refers to nothing other than an absence of abiding, or clinging. Other seminal Ch’an texts, such as the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, characterize no-thought in precisely the same manner.

Be here now, no other place to be
All the doubts that linger, just set them free
And let good things happen
And let the future come into each moment
Like a rising sun

Mason Jennings – Be Here Now

Continue reading “We’re Already Dead (But That’s Okay)”

A Dream and Quantum System Representation

I had some pretty vivid dreams last night, but one of the “segments” that was most impactful was where I was sitting and looking at someone else.  I saw this person as being separate from myself, but at the same time I knew it was myself.  My movements, expressions and thoughts were reflected directly on them.  It was almost, but not quite, like a mirror.  It was slightly exciting, unnerving and honestly a little scary to see and feel myself as separate, but simultaneously be the same as what I was perceiving.  The being I saw had a smooth head devoid of features other than eyes, ears, nose and mouth.  There was no visual similarity between the two of us, but the connection was extremely deep.

paper cranes in a drop

This feels like a direct manifestation of the thoughts that I have been having of the dual nature of existence.  I have been reading a book describing system simulation and modeling systems using linear algebraic matrix and vector representation.  Any system can essentially be modeled using this notation.  This extends into quantum systems where probability and decay come into play.  Different subsystems describing discrete functionality can be combined together to form a super-system.   However, the subsystems can only communicate with each other and the larger super-system through their input and output interfaces.  This begs the question, “Is everything one and a single system operating as a whole or is everything strictly independent?”

I am only about two-thirds of the way through the book (, but the concepts are making sense.  It obviously gets more complex and abstract as the book goes through describing linear, non-linear, time variant, probabilistic  and quantum systems.  The implications are pretty staggering in that life itself could be a self evolving matrix of state transitions.  The last chapters in the paper deal with consciousness and naïve realism.  My brain was pretty much toast from the concepts so far and I wanted to take a break to really cleanse and absorb my thoughts before continuing on.  It is a very interesting read, and the author has a whole site devoted to this approach to defining reality.

Of course this duality at its core is a Buddhist concept.  Overcoming the dual nature of being separate, but the same is to me the heart of enlightenment.  The full realization that there is no difference between the observer and the observed is what I hope to gain through my journey.  This book has definitely given me some insight and validation into my current thought patterns.  I have always been enamored with math, but I have seen it as a problem to be solved, a puzzle.  I have seen math applied to physics of course, but I never took courses in quantum physics, so seeing the application to probabilistic systems is pretty amazing.  This process takes things a step further and applying that understanding to metaphysics and an understanding of the cosmos.  I only wish that I had made those connections 15 years ago while in school.   But I am here now, and everything up to this point has prepared me to accept more of the mathematical nature of the universe.

“There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object, whereas the awareness of the Self is absolute and requires no object. Remembrance also is similarly relative, requiring an object to be remembered and a subject to remember. When there is no duality, who is to remember whom? The Self is ever-present. Each one wants to know the Self. What kind of help does one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light etc. How can it be so? It is not light, not darkness. It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. The best definition is ‘I am that I am’. The srutis [scriptures] speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact. It is only being, but different from the real and the unreal; it is knowledge, but different from knowledge and ignorance. How can it be defined at all? It is simply being.”
Ramana Maharshi

Continue reading “A Dream and Quantum System Representation”

Of a Quantum Mind

Everything is linked in a tight cosmic dance that depends on every particle being exactly where it is at this moment.  The wind blows and a car moves down the street at a slow pace.  I push buttons on a keyboard made in a factory thousands of miles a way.  We see light in the sky that dates back to the beginning of our conception of time.  Or maybe it is all meaningless random bits and we are all individually ego driven.

I keep coming back to quantum theory as a possible explanation of reality.  Sir Roger Penrose’s theories on the quantum mind posit that the physical world itself holds no clues to consciousness.  Is consciousness in our thoughts or is it in some quantum processing that is currently going on without our awareness?  What is something until it is observed?  Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened and the cat suddenly exists in that state.   If observation causes collapse of a wave into a definite state then what exists in non-observation?  Everything exists in a state of potential waiting to be observed.  The observation forms a matrix of information that we then process as our reality.

The reason is that quantum mechanics requires interpretation before it describes the experience of an observer. While particles and fields are described by a wavefunction, the results of observations are described by classical information which tells you the result. The information about observations is not in the wavefunction, but is additional random data. The wavefunction gives only the probability of getting different outcomes, and it turns into a classical probability only during the act of measurement, when its magnitude squared gives a probability for different outcomes

The Quantum Mind-Body Problem

English: Professor Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 A...

I sort of equate this to a television or monitor.  Each pixel exists in a non-state until the TV is turned on and it is set to a given state.  It is told to be Red or Green or Blue to render a certain image.  All of the pixels on the screen work in unison to produce an image that makes sense to our brains.  Freeze all of the pixels in a given state and the image is paused.  As the pixels change states, we perceive motion when they exist in a state that we expect.  If the pixels are not in the right state for that image, then we may see noise or distortions.

All matter that we perceive is at its base level comprised of bits or particles that can exist in a finite set of states.  That exact set of states gives us the perception of reality.  Those particles form an image of reality.  As those particles change states, reality flows.  When that screen or matrix of particles makes sense, we see a clear image.  When there is a discrepancy between our expectations and that matrix then we see noise.  The more that we can drop our expectations of what the moment should be, the more the picture comes into focus and the noise drops away.

We can focus the image by dropping our expectations and accepting the moment.  The image may still flash and blip, but we are on our path to reducing the noise.  Every thought that you have of yourself in the past is just a thought and it is not happening now.  Likewise the future is just a projection based on how you see your current reality.  The more that you attach to a future or past form, the more rigid you make your current moment.  Release those forms and free reality.

Continue reading “Of a Quantum Mind”

Matter and Mind

Matter box size comparison

What is something if it is not perceived?  If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to experience it, did it really even exist at all?  When we saw evidence that we think indicates a fallen tree, are we making up a story of how it got to that state?  We assume that at one point it was seed, grew over the course of decades, and then fell.

I guess it depends on what is considered matter and what is considered a product of the mind.  Again we are removed from reality and interpreting through our senses what is matter.  So is mind matter or is matter mind?

What is mindNo matter. What is matterNever mind.

George Berkeley

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: