Self

&

The Holographic Existence

Ever hear the small voice inside, giving you advise that sometimes we follow, and other times we decide, "What does it know?" Many call it intuition, a feeling, perhaps the "inner voice". More times than not, when we follow that "inner voice", it is right. When we think it is wrong, we have that feeling that on a bigger scale it is not.

For some it represents a higher self that exists in a higher place. Another you that resides in the ether and sees itself connected to God. That part of you that does not recognize duality.

In 1957, Hugh Everett III proposed a radical new way of dealing with some of the more perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics. It became known as the Many-Worlds Interpretation.

According to this interpretation, whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, one world for each different possibility (in this context, the term "worlds" refers to what most people call "universes"). In each of these worlds, everything is identical, except for that one different choice; from that point on, they develop independently, and it appears that communication is not possible between them, so the people living in those worlds (and splitting along with them) may have no idea that this is going on.

In this way, the world branches endlessly. What is "the present" to us lies in the pasts of an uncountable huge number of different futures. Everything that can happen, does, somewhere.

"The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an approach to quantum mechanics according to which, in addition to the world we are aware of directly, there are many other similar worlds, which exist in parallel at the same space and time. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics."

There are probabilities within our existence for unlimited scenarios of self. Each self, permeating the many possibilities of existence. Each existence made real by the probabilities of self. With so many probabilities, where does awareness focus? Awareness is in all probabilities; your awareness is here and now. The other probabilities exist as extensions of you as it is now. The "inner self" is aware of all probable selves. In one probability, you may be married and have children, where in this one you have no desire for spouse or children.

""I" am an object, such as Earth, cat, plant, etc. "I" is defined at a particular time by a complete (classical) description of the state of my body and of my brain. "I" and "Joe" do not name the same things (even though my name is Joe). At the present moment there are many different "Joe's" in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I". I have a particular, well-defined past: I correspond to a particular "Joe" in 2007, but I do not have a well defined future: I correspond to a multitude of "Joe's" in 2010. In the framework of the MWI it is meaningless to ask: Which Joe in 2010 will I be? I will correspond to them all. Every time I perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results); it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Joe who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Joe cannot be identified as the only Joe after the experiment. Joe before the experiment corresponds to all "Joe's" obtaining all possible results. Although this approach to the concept of personal identity seems somewhat unusual, it is plausible in the light of the critique of personal identity by Parfit 1986. Parfit considers some artificial situations in which a person splits into several copies, and argues that there is no good answer to the question: Which copy is me? He concludes that personal identity is not what matters when I divide."

Another theory of multiverse also exists called the M-theory. Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, sparking a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

"A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the 11-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory. In M-theory, our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", these universes can have different laws of physics."

Let us look at the higher self and what role it plays in our existence today. There are many in our current times that have the gift of Channeling. A few well noted psychics or what is called Channelers in today's terminology are Edgar Cayce, Jane Roberts (Seth), Helen Schucman (A Course in Miracles), and Esther Hicks (Abraham). Each of these claims to channel non-physical beings that give us advice, insight, and messages of hope and joy. Are these entities speaking through physical beings and are they a separate entity from the one doing the channeling? This can be a challenging question.

The Seth personality describes himself as an "energy personality essence no longer focused in physical reality" who was independent of Roberts' subconscious, although Roberts herself expressed skepticism as to Seth's origins.

Helen described her experience as highly symbolic dreams and descriptions of strange images that were coming to her. The Voice made no sound, but seemed to be giving her a kind of rapid, inner dictation which she took down in a shorthand notebook. The writing was never automatic. It could be interrupted at any time and later picked up again. The voice that channeled a "new gospel" to Mrs. Schucman claimed to be Jesus Christ.

Abraham describes themselves as a group of non-physical beings.

Are these separate entities from those channeling or a direct connection to their higher self? It is possible that those who channel are really in touch with their higher selves, giving them an identity in order to alleviate association with the Channeler. It is considerably easier to place one's faith in an entity that is independent of an individual's subconscious than in the individuals themselves. We tend to prejudice ourselves when we feel that an individual (physical) is all knowing. Fits with the old cliché "No one likes a know-it-all".

Let us assume for a moment that they are not separate entities and the higher self is actually one's subconscious. Where does this knowledge come from and how does the subconscious know so much?

If we go back in history to so some of the ancient writings, we find details of knowledge that we cannot today explain. A good example would be the Rigveda.

The Rigveda is an ancient Indian collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns dedicated to the gods (devas). It is counted among the four Hindu canonical sacred texts (śruti) known as the Vedas. Based on philological and linguistic evidences, the Rigveda was composed roughly between 1700 - 1100 BCE (the early Vedic period).

A verse from these writings says "Yojanam Sahastra Dwe Dwe Shate Dwe Cha Yojana Aken Nimishardhena Krammana Namostutey" (1, 50-4), which in English translates to; "I salute Thee (Sunlight), who moves 2206 Yojana, in half Nimish".

"Yojana is well known in India and is equivalent to 4 'Kose', each 'Kose' measuring 8,000 yards or 8000 X 0.9144 meters. 'Nimish' is defined in the Hindu Sacred book, "Srimadbhagwat Gita"(111, 11-3 to 10), where 15 'nimish'es make 1 'kashta', 15 'kashta' make one 'laghu', 30 'laghu's make 1 'muhurta' and 30 'muhurta' make one 'Diva-Ratri' (Day-Night). Day-Night is 24 hours.

Hence, a simple calculation converts the speed of sunlight as 3.00 X 10^8 m/s, which is the speed of light in S. I. Unit, correct up to two significant digits. This difference might be accounted for by the value of 8,000 yards per Kose."

How did the writers of this ancient text have this knowledge? Without the tools of today, how were they able to calculate the speed of light?

Perhaps all knowledge is contained within each of us. Some are able to remember what has always been and others are not. There is no difference between Einstein and Joe on the corner. Perhaps Einstein had an ability to access this knowledge making him an exception to the average. How he was able to do this becomes the question.

Perhaps this knowledge comes from the higher self. If the higher self is that part of each of us that is always connected to the source, All that Is, or if one prefers God, then it stands to reason that the knowledge would be unlimited.

Quantum Consciousness:

In attempts to solve the measurement problem in quantum physics, physicists frequently run into the problem of consciousness. Though most physicists try to sidestep the issue, it seems that there is a link between the conscious choice of experiment and the outcome of the experiment.

Some physicists, most notably Roger Penrose, believe that current physics cannot explain consciousness, and that consciousness itself has a link to the strange quantum realm.

The questions are many in this endeavor to understand self. Are we just consciousness, and sub-consciousness? Is the all-knowing self a part of our sub-consciousness? Is there a high self that is connected to All That Is and thus imparting knowledge upon each of us? Are there many selves in many worlds all aware at some level of each self? From what self do we get our insight, genius, and inspiration?

Perhaps our existence is more complicated or simple than we think. When we look at our existence from a Holographic prospective, we open another realm of thought. The *Holographic Model proposes evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it -- from snowflakes to maple trees to falling stars and spinning electrons -- are also only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own it is literally beyond both space and time.

The main architects of this astonishing idea are two of the world's most eminent thinkers: University of London physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein's, and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists; and Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist at Stanford University and author of the classic neuropsychological textbook Languages of the Brain. Intriguingly, Bohm and Pribram arrived at their conclusions independently and while working from two very different directions. Bohm became convinced of the universe's holographic nature only after years of dissatisfaction with standard theories' inability to explain all of the phenomena encountered in quantum physics. Pribram became convinced because of the failure of standard theories of the brain to explain various neurophysiologic puzzles.

After arriving at their views, Bohm and Pribram quickly realized the holographic model explained a number of other mysteries as well. One is the apparent inability of any theory, no matter how comprehensive, ever to account for all the phenomena encountered in nature. For instance the ability of individuals with- hearing in only one ear to determine the direction from which a sound originates or our ability to recognize the face of someone we have not seen for many years even if that person has changed considerably in the interim.

One of the most staggering things about the holographic model was that it suddenly made sense of a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding. These include telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis.

A growing number of scientists who came to embrace the holographic model used it to explain virtually all paranormal and mystical experiences, and in the last half-dozen years or so it has continued to galvanize researchers and shed light on an increasing number of previously inexplicable phenomena.

In 1980, University of Connecticut psychologist Dr. Kenneth Ring proposed that the holographic model could explain near-death experiences. Ring, who is president of the International Association for Near-Death Studies, believes such experiences, as well as death itself, are nothing more than the shifting of a person's consciousness from one level of the hologram of reality to another.

In 1985 Dr. Stanislav Grof, chief of psychiatric research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, published a book in which he concluded that existing neurophysiologic models of the brain are inadequate and only a holographic model can explain such things as archetypal experiences, encounters with the collective unconscious, and other unusual phenomena experienced during altered states of consciousness.

At the 1987 annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Dreams held in Washington, D.C., physicist Fred Alan Wolf delivered a talk in which he asserted that the holographic model explains lucid dreams (unusually vivid dreams in which the dreamer realizes he or she is awake). Wolf believes such dreams are actually visits to parallel realities, and the holographic model will ultimately allow us to develop a "physics of consciousness" which will enable us to begin to explore more fully these other-dimensional levels of existence.

In his 1987 book entitled Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind, Dr. F. David Peat, a physicist at Queen's University in Canada, asserted that synchronicities (coincidences that are so unusual and so psychologically meaningful they don't seem to be the result of chance alone) can be explained by the holographic model. Peat believes such coincidences are actually "flaws in the fabric of reality". They reveal that our thought processes are much more intimately connected to the physical world than has been hitherto suspected.

If the Holographic Model is correct in its assumptions, then it stands to reason that the higher self is plausible and the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) gives weight to the many selves prospective.

The higher self calls to each of us. That quiet voice that never stops. It continues through the chaos and turmoil of our lives. Many do not hear it because life is too busy and the day-to-day routinely drowns it out. It is there to guide each of us over the chaos that we have so purposely and intently, created for ourselves.

Many call it God, the Universe, Consciousness, Source, Gut feeling, Intuition, and Soul. I call it the answer to my question. Many give it a name simply for reference and familiarity. It has been a part of me always, well since time began. I listen and many times what is heard is not always comfortable or in many cases wanted. Many times, it instills fear and worry. I know that when I do listen, the fear, and worry is quickly replaced, with peace, and joy. Each of us has the ability to rise "above the battle field", if only we would be quiet.

But then again, who are you going to listen to?

-b

References

• Talbot, Michael, The Holographic Universe

Barnes&Noble