Middle Pane

absurdism, philosophy, science, music




Why is it that we can remember some things some of the time, but not all things all of the time?  Why is memory selective to the situation and the frame of mind?  Why does doing certain things trigger certain memories?  Why are those memories chosen over others?

Sometimes the memories bring pleasure, and we cherish those over the ones that bring us pain.  Still, we remember the ones that bring us pain.

One memory…  one moment… triggering the next one.

What was the first one?  And how could there ever be a first one?

An empty state

A state of emptiness

Screenshot from 2015-12-04 22:41:18

Continue reading “Memory”

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”

The Wager

Does society guide the future based on correct concerns?  Do trends influence future technology?  What is most acceptable to the masses is the winner over sometimes a better technology.  And this expands outside of technology.  A TV show that you like has probably been cancelled before you think it should have been.  This is the majority picking something that disagrees with a small set of viewers that really like the show.  But what is best?  You obviously have your feelings about the show, and they have theirs.  Who is right?  The thing is that it is right for them, but not right for you.  We swim along nicely as long as everyone is going in the same direction, but when there is a change it is startling.  It can be you striking out on your own or the rest of the school goes the other direction.  I guess I am mixing metaphors here, but hopefully you understand what I am saying.

We are mirrors reflecting mirrors.  We see ourselves reflected back at us, but we don’t want to rob that being of their individuality, so we know that we are also a mirror reflecting back to them.  It is rather beautiful and touching when you think about it.

Continue reading “The Wager”

Our Narrow Slice

Very interesting and exciting showing the exponential evolution of the human race.  If you watch nothing else from the video, check out the segment starting at 8:39 (  This shows the history of the Earth progressing 1,000 years every second.  Our thin little slice is just a flash at the end.  Don’t blink.

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.

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”


Every road is connected

All roads lead to all destinations

At least to all destinations where someone has already been

Until we choose to go off road

To go somewhere where roads do not exist

But we have still been there before

Rain falls from the sky

Feeding lakes and rivers

Flowing to the sea and going back home along the way

Did that rain drop of water really make it all the way to the sea?

Once it became part of the connectedness,

Could it ever go back to being the same rain drop?

It was lost and found at the same time

But wasn’t it always connected, even when it did exist as a single drop of rain?

The smallest particles of the river

squished up against the smallest particles of the sky

Some outside perception determining a certain separation between the two

But aren’t they always together?

Just a different delineation is being made

Continue reading “Interpenetration”

Observation of Time

Can time exist without an observer.  Time could be defined as events that occur and our perception of some unit of measurement that has passed between those events.  Perceived time varies per observer and is based on internal and external events.  If I look forward to some event happening, time may be perceived to progress slower coming up to the event and then quicker afterwards.  That same event may be something that someone else dreads, so time may be perceived to be quicker coming up to the event and slower afterwards.  Which observed movement of time is correct?  So, can there be independent, non-observed time.

One image, as the observer, observes dozens of other images around himself and inside himself … there is a central image put together by all the other images, and this central image, the observer, is the censor, the experiencer, the evaluator, the judge who wants to conquer or subjugate the other images or destroy them altogether. But other images are the results of judgments, opinions and conclusions of the observer, and the observer is the result of all the other images—therefore the observer is the observed.


Measuring change of state of particles makes assumptions about how time affects the particles.  Consider the zen koan “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, then does it make a sound”?  Without someone to perceive the sound, does the sound exist?  OR “If no one is around to see the tree at all, did it fall?” Are we making assumptions about how it got into that state based on our prior experiences or has the tree always existed in that state.  We observe and then make up a story that fits our observations.

Water flows on and on
but it never flows away.
The moon waxes and wanes,
and yet in the end it is the same moon.
If we look at things through the eyes of change,
then there’s not a single instant of stillness in all creation.
But if we observe the changelessness of things,
then we, and all beings alike
have no end.

Su Shih

If time only exists when perceived, does it really exist at all?  Is everything just a possibility in flux (null) waiting for an observer to flip the switch and lock it into something meaningful to that observer?  And if that is true for “physical” matter, what about thought or feeling?  Can thought or feeling exist without an observer and if it is being observed who/what is that observer?

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

We are not viewing physical matter, we are viewing our perceptions (thoughts/feelings) of physical matter.  Obviously thoughts and feelings can be influenced by subtle things that we are not even aware of, but if it is all part of our perception then we should have ultimate control of it.  It is awareness that breaks the illusion.

Like you, I am a luminous stardust being that has become self-aware, and we are two pieces of stardust that are having a conversation. But that is just a spacetime event. Our real nature is beyond space and time.

Deepak Chopra


Big Crunch overview
Big Crunch overview (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I keep wanting to draw some correlation between the number of possible five minute audio files (2^211M) and the number of estimated number of hydrogen atoms in the universe (10^60).  I keep going back to that audio file representing all possible audio snippets including things that did and did not happen.  That audio span contains me driving an Audi R6 down the autobahn before I shoot my James Bond rockets into the douchebag in front of me.  The audio file also has all possible scenarios of everything.  You could even take consecutive 5 minute spans to form a story reaching from the big bang to the big crunch.  Everything is possible in that five minutes.  EVERYTHING!

So that five minutes of audio holds potential.  The same is true of the universe.  These different particles just waiting in a null state ready to be perceived.  Who knows what the count of particles is.  It is large.  If the number of hydrogen atoms has been determined to be finite, then the number of particles must be finite as well.  But at the same time, it represents all possibilities.  Everything that could happen is represented by a finite number.  Every possible thing, even the stuff that we can’t fathom  as possible.

And what sits outside of that?  Who is the viewer of that?  Who is the Observer?  I know what I want my answer to be, but I cannot say it with conviction.  I think that part of the reason is that I want to jump to seeing it all.  I want to jump to seeing something specific.  I must first fully see my self.  I must first fully see this possibility as it is.  I must see this moment, and what is in front of me.   Let it be.  I shouldn’t try to interpret and build a past.  Something may have happened before this and something may happen after this, but it is not happening now.

If I am thinking about something in the past, then it is a memory and not the actual event.  Any feelings that I have are based on that memory and not the event itself.  Since my feelings are not based on the current moment then I should be swayed by them.

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: