NEWS: Analysis & Commentary Part 8 Discussions on Remote Viewing By Jimmy Williams Quantum physics is truly strange. It is quite a stretch for the properly grounded conventionally oriented human. Remote viewing is just as strange. Being a lover of strange things, I continue in this article with some thoughts on why quantum physics and remote viewing are intimately related and why it is important for remote viewers to have at least a provisional knowledge of how physics and consciousness work together. This is a controversial subject and many of the ideas I propose are theoretical and unproven. Nevertheless, I have done a great deal of research and believe the information will be helpful for remote viewers that are struggling to find an explanation for their experiences. The nature of remote viewing is intimately tied with the nature of thought. It is also intimately tied with the nature of the physical world. It is therefore important to understand how thought and matter interact. The skeptic applies classical understanding of the physical world to psychic functioning and is in disbelief when he hears claims of extraordinary abilities. The mystic tries to translate personal experience, in terms of the mundane world and is often frustrated by the difficulty. Thankfully, there have been many new advances in physics and philosophy that give us hope that the gap between these two worldviews is closing. What is it about thought and matter that make them so fundamentally different? Amit Goswami, Ph.D., resident quantum physicist at the Institute for Noetic Sciences says that one big difference is the “grossness” of the macro world. Physical and mental objects are both quantum substances. The physical objects we see are composed of smaller and smaller components whereas mental objects are already at their fundamental level of simplicity. There are no thought molecules or thought atoms. Quantum objects like photons and electrons obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that you cannot simultaneously measure the position and velocity of quantum objects with accuracy. You can only state where they might be or how fast they might be going. The mathematics of Quantum Physics allows us to calculate these probabilities with a high degree of accuracy. Quantum objects are subtle. The act of observation itself interferes with the photon or electron. Of all the possible places or velocities the particle can assume, conscious observation fixes either it's position or velocity, but not both. According to physicist David Bohm, you can verify directly that thoughts-mental objects-obey the uncertainty principle; because you can never simultaneously keep track of both the content of a thought and where it is going, (the direction of thought). Thoughts are therefore quantum in their very nature. Contrast this to macro scale objects. Even though our observed physical world is composed of quantum objects, we can’t observe them directly. Because of the microscopic scale and because of the conglomerate nature of the things we observe, mere observation has an extremely small effect. Between the time I look at a wall then you look at the same wall a short time later, the probabilities have changed so little due to our conscious interference, that we can have a high degree of consensus about where the wall is and where it is likely to be in the future, i.e. its position and velocity. How does remote viewing fit in to this scheme? As has been shown in past articles, there is a direct correlation between the idea of quantum non-locality and our ability to associatively link our awareness to information that is displaced in space and time. How do we reconcile the gap between classical Newtonian physics and the subtle nature of quantum physics? How are humans able to perceive quantum physical objects non-locally and interact in a classical world of objective reality at the same time? The grossness of the physical world and the subtleness of the quantum world are beautifully balanced in a hierarchy of ascending and descending order. Our feet are firmly planted on the earth. Our identity is firmly fixed in our bodies. Our thoughts and feelings are intimately associated with the subtlest aspects of our neurochemistry. Thoughts, emotions, perceptions, intuitions and our creativity come from the quantum nature of the world and are fixed at increasingly gross levels by chemistry, physiology and physics. The fully functioning, healthy human can exist all along this gradient of manifestation. The ability to hold the highest potential from the subtlest to the grossest levels of reality in harmony with the rest of creation is the hallmark of a successful human being. The successful remote viewer has the ability to interact with the subtle nature of the world. The remote viewer learns to use techniques that bridge the gradient from subtle to gross. The remote viewer ascends and descends this hierarchy of existence to render pictures and words on paper that once existed in the quantum nature of reality alone. I think this is the true value of learning this skill. According to a recent article in Discover Magazine by Tom Folger, eminent scientist John Wheeler believes that consciousness shapes the universe, not only the present but the past as well. According to the article, physicists at the University of Maryland proved this in the laboratory in 1984. “Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though their measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.” What this shows is that when consciousness interacts with quantum reality, it selectively causes some aspect of the quantum potential to become real. It causes one of all the possible outcomes to manifest. It also shows that it doesn’t matter whether the so-called causal event (in this case the emission of the photon), happened in the past or not. “The successful remote viewer has the ability to interact with the subtle nature of the world. The remote viewer learns to use techniques that bridge the gradient from subtle to gross.” On the one hand it would seem that we live in a magical world where cause and effect are weirdly affected by a mere glance. On the other hand, we all struggle with gross reality. I can’t manifest a new car out of the quantum soup any more than the next guy can. There are many features of reality that fix the nature of quantum events and make the physical world behave the way it does. According to Dr. Amit Goswami in his book Physics of the Soul, without a body, or a brain there can be no collapse of the possibility waves of quantum objects. Ordinarily quantum experiments use gross objects like a Geiger counter or some other detector to “measure” the quantum particles of interest. Even so, it takes an actual observation by a conscious observer to “quantify” what is being detected. According to Dr. Goswami, one thought is just as possible, subtle and ephemeral as the next. All thoughts operate on the same scale. Since there is no hierarchy of action, one thought can never manifest another as reality without the intercession of a living being whether it is a living cell or a brain. When a human observes the outcome of a quantum experiment there are actual molecular changes in the physiology of the brain. According to the proposals of Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Dr. Roger Penrose this process takes place in the microtubules that make up the neurons in our brains. Quantum states are fixed by the orientation of the proteins that make up the structure of these microtubules. The interesting thing is that these proteins can be in an indeterminate quantum state. Until a choice is made, until an observation is made, they represent all of the several possible configurations that protein can have. Millions of protein molecules along the microtubules of each neuron are interconnected with each other in an array that makes up the neuron and ultimately determines when, if and in what manner the neuron fires. This hierarchy of events beginning at a quantum level and ascending in grossness to neuro-chemical events is a means of amplifying what is going on at a quantum level. Possibilities are manifest as intricate assemblies of neural proteins. The configuration of these proteins is selected by consciousness. What we experience as conscious thought occurs very far upstream from the molecular level of action. Massive orderings of the quantum states of our neurochemistry show up as thoughts, emotions and perceptions. Our cognitive mind operates at this level of complexity. Conscious choice and intent cascade down the ladder of action just as quantum information cascades up. It is a bi-directional feedback loop. It is not unlike the biblical reference to “Jacob’s Ladder” with angels ascending and descending between heaven and earth. Our conscious will (and our unconscious predispositions) bias our quantum computer to receive the information we receive. Remote viewing works because this channel of action exists between the quantum physical and the electrochemical and neurological levels of our brain. Remember, one of the characteristics of quantum reality is non-locality. In Alain Aspects experiment with correlated (entangled) photons it was conclusively shown that when one experimenter observes a photon, thus collapsing its state, the other correlated photon will immediately acquire this state but it will remain as potential and unexperienced until another observer measures it. It doesn’t matter how far away the other photon is. Theoretically it could be on the other side of the galaxy. By consciously cuing a cryptic identifier, a target ID, to a remote viewing target we are creating a non-local link to that target. A new, unused target identifier, for instance: 2M4Y-6L0U doesn’t mean anything. The symbol is only a thought and therefore quantum in nature. The possibilities of what this target ID could mean are practically infinite. Before a target is cued to this ID, it is in an indeterminate state. Its quantum wave function has not collapsed. A targeteer, being careful to have in mind only the subject that he wants viewed, identifies it with the target identifier. At this point, the only meaning in the entire universe that this cryptic symbol identifies is that of the target. This symbols’ quantum wave function has now collapsed into a state representative of the actual target. The targeteer has created a quantum phase entanglement between the real target and the target identifier, much like the quantum entanglement in Alain Aspects experiment with photons. As the remote viewer clears his mind and concentrates on the identifier, he biases his own quantum computer (brain) to predispose it to the target. He collapses some of the quantum nature of his consciousness in the form of the target ID. This target identifier means more than just a random set of symbols due to the actions of the targeteer. It now is intimately identified with the target and nothing else. As the extended meaning of this target identifier comes through it begins to assemble at higher levels of neural activity until it becomes a perception. It is well known that as one learns, one will more easily learn things that are similar. Your mind predisposes itself to receiving more of the same. At first when you begin to perceive remote data that is cued to a target ID, very little in the way of reference and predisposition exists. After all, to the conscious mind a target ID has no meaning whatsoever. As the nature of the target slowly impresses itself on your consciousness, more and more of your quantum machinery is brought into play. Bits of disjointed data begin to assemble at higher and higher resolution as entanglement with the target increases. This is why it is very important for the remote viewer to keep the analytical mind disengaged. If one were to know the nature of the target ahead of time (front loaded remote viewing), a whole different set of quantum effects comes in to play. Not only the target, but also all the secondary effects of what you thought, felt or knew about the subject or any similar subject become entangled with the intended target. Under these circumstances there is no way to discriminate between actual target data and ones imaginings or remembrances. Even if you were especially astute at screening imaginary or remembered data from the actual target, you would never convince the skeptical observer. Unfortunately, many people that claim to be remote viewers do not understand the importance of being ignorant of the target prior to viewing. Even some people that claim to be teachers of remote viewing are either woefully ignorant or are playing fast and loose with remote viewing protocols for their personal gain. One has to use a very sharp intellectual knife to slice the charlatans and the self deluded from the actual application of this skill. If we aren’t mindful of what constitutes true remote viewing versus false claims about it, the credibility that we are trying so hard to establish will be washed away by sensationalist claims that make their way on to the popular mass media. There is very strong scientific information that supports our claim that remote viewing is a real phenomenon. If we study the science and apply our skills in a scrupulously honest fashion, we will further prevail. I hope this article will give some further insight into why remote viewing works and allow us to push the boundary of understanding without doing violence to our credibility in the process. References: Amit Goswami, Physics of the Soul, 2001 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980 Stuart Hameroff, www.consciousness.arizona.edu Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, 1994   * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Introduction, Part One, February 2001, R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Two, March 2001, R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Three, April 2001, R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Four, May 2001, R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Five, June-July 2001, R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Six, August-September 2001, R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Seven, January-February 2002, R.V. News)  PRINT THIS ARTICLE Privacy Statement Copyright © 2002, H.R.V.G. All rights reserved.

JULY-AUGUST ARTICLES ·Simon Owen Report    Page 2    Page 3    Page 4    Data Extraction ·2002 IRVA Conference ·Conference Photos    Page 1    Page 2    Page 3    Page 4    Photo Register ·Near Future Event    Session Data ·Cy Shinkawa ·Remote Viewing ·PJ Gaenir    Page 2 ·Discussions on RV