Research into Unknowable

Little question

October 17, 2014
The concept of Unknowable is better expressed as the non-awareness part of the “awareness – non-awareness” dichotomy. Please see Universe and Awareness.


This space shall contain comments that pertain to research into unknowable:


I understand what you are describing here.  It aligned extremely well with my past experience but it does not align with my own experience very accurately these days.  Probably the language, which becomes very clumsy.

There is a level beyond knowing that we can and do “experience.”  I cannot say “I”  experience it to even halfway accurately describe this.  It does not have any manifestation associated with it and “I” becomes a meaningless word.  What follows is the best description I can presently offer:

Knowing, perceiving, experiencing in this reality (in which I am typing) as me is never anything more than a perception of the past and with a successive series of present moments. They are successive ONLY in interchange and they are not particularly precise.  Even the future in this reality is already past.  It is already past because it was already created as what will be.  So there is really only now and then in this reality.

Simultaneously and always there is a true now.  It is NOT in the time stream.  It is the source of the time stream.  It is not past, present or “future.”  And this is where me goes beyond the limited being me.

While it is true that this state is not knowable in any “concrete” way, including concept, thought, mental images, physical forms, emotion, perception (bodily or otherwise) it is also true that it is a some kind of wellspring or source of these things. I don’t “know about” it.  “I” don’t “know” it.  I am and I am more than I am no fixed state and the words fail miserably.

I am sorry I cannot be more clear about this.  I assure you this is real, more real than any manifestation of anything and I love it beyond all things.  In my “self” it is a state of complete ease that often reflects into emotion as unbelievable joy, and from there into the body as lightness and brightness and sheer exuberance.

It is unknowable in the terms of this world, in terms of things, yes.  But it is real beyond all limited reality.

Vinaire’s comment:

“Unknowable” is just an enticing placeholder that dares one to challenge it. It postulates that there always will be something that is not known no matter how deep you may dive into it…. somewhat like an infinte series. It is quite an exciting concept for me.


The “unknowable” is postulated simply to warn, “DO NOT REST AFTER DISCOVERING A STABLE DATUM. THERE IS NO LAST WORD.”


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 9:41 AM

    Hi Vinnie. Maria has hit upon one thing I’ve been meaning to ask you! And that is – how are you defining “know” when you state that one cannot know the Unknowable. To quote Maria from the above – “not knowable in any ‘concrete’ way, including concept, thought, mental images, physical forms, emotion, perception (bodily or otherwise)” – this seems like a very good definition. I think something like it would be a helpful addition to your essays about Unknowable and make the whole idea clearer.

    However, I still have a problem with what you stated in your comment above. You say on the one hand that “Unknowable is just an enticing placeholder that dares one to challenge it,” and on the other that “It postulates that there always will be something that is not known no matter how deep you may dive into it.”

    You have written both ideas elsewhere too and it seems that although you contend that Unknowable is “just” a very useful tool, you do postulate it as an actuality and call the word “Unknowable” a placeholder. So since you have postulated such, my question is – why would you? It isn’t just a rhetorical question. In addition to wanting to ask your definition of “know” I’ve also been wondering that too – why postulate an Unknowable, i.e. how did you come to that as a postulate?

    • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 9:57 AM

      p.s. I get from Elizabeth that she has had a similar or the same experience as Maria describes, and perhaps others too who’ve objected to the idea of an Unknowable. (I’m thinking of some posters who have commented to you in the past on Geir’s blog, probably OTs)

    • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

      Do you understand what I mean by “. somewhat like an infinte series”?


  • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

    So far, so good. (I think. :-))

    • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM

      I’m guessing you may be saying that there is always something that may be just out of the reach of being knowable, and when that comes in reach there’s the next thing that’s just out of reach, etc. If this is right, I still don’t understand why there wouldn’t or couldn’t be an ultimate reality/actuality that is eventually reachable and can be “known” in some sense. Not in the sense of being a perceivable manifestation, but by a different definition of “know.”

    • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM

      I don’t know. Give it a try. 🙂


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM

        Good answer. 🙂

        But would you please explain what I was asking – the basis for “why postulate an Unknowable, i.e. how did you come to that as a postulate?” (as I asked above)?

        (I haven’t forgotten what you said about being “in the fast lane,” busy with your work these days, so you can let me know if it’s too much to go into right now.)

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM

        Would the answer “intuition” satisfy you?

        (I am at a fast lane lunch right now.)


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM

        Yes, if that is the answer. Is it the full answer?

        Thinking further, I wanted to say that if you define “know” in such terms as perception of manifestation, then it’s easy to conceive of the possibility of “knowledge” which not perceivable – Unknowable. Am I in the ball park? Anywhere near it? 😉

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

        You are impossible. Does Marildi mean, “One who can never be satisfied?” 🙂

        Now, take a break and really look if their is a consideration that you are taking for granted with respect to knowing and knowledge. 🙂

        Did you ever disagree with the phrase, “Absolutes are unattainable?”


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 12:59 PM

        Imposssible, maybe. But did you answer my question before asking yours. 😉

        On the other hand, if you are answering by way of asking ME a question, this is not clear. (Don’t forget, now, you are practicing on me. Then you’ll be able to handle anybody at all. :-))

      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

        “Would the answer “intuition” satisfy you?”

        “Now, take a break and really look if…”

        Should I interpret those as being like an Southern old gentleman who patronizes all the ladies with (in essence) “Now, don’t bother your pretty little head about all this.” (Stereotypically polite Southern talk to a woman; often said facetiously or patronizingly.) 😀

  • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

    Absolutes are unattainable – in this universe. For me that aligns perfectly well with the idea that “knowing” in this universe is a matter of manifestations and their perception. And it also aligns with “knowing” in a whole different sense, and this kind of knowing may even be possible while still being connected to a body – but where one’s knowingness goes beyond it, outside of perceived manifestations.

    • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 6:23 PM

      I don’t think one ever disconnects from the body. Body is an important part of “self.”

      “Extriorization” is “not having attention fixated on the body.”The body still has to be there for exteriorization to have a meaning. When body disintegrates, self also disintegrates.

      This is my opinion.

    • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

      Thanks, Vin 🙂

      Well, the subject of self is another one I’m interested in – I’ll have to find your essay on that! But for now it can be put aside from the discussion. In the comment just above, I was really trying to say that a key point seems to be the usual, ordinary meaning of “know,” which always has to do with perception of manifestations. And what I was thinking is that there may be another sense of know that does not involve manifestations. This is what Maria and others seem to be talking about. And perhaps this is where some people get confused by your idea of Un-know-able. See what I mean?

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM

        My stipulation is that you can only know, or experience, what is manifested. Now there can be several levels of “know” like terms in an infinite series.


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM

        “terms in an infinite series” I need you to amplify that a bit, or give me an example.

      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM

        Okay, got it. And this makes just as much sense with regard to words and their meanings as it does with numbers.

        Well, this tells me that when you speak of Unknowable, it’s strictly in terms of knowing about manifestations. And since you already included experience as well, it seems clear that you are assuming there can be no experience, perception or knowledge except in terms of manifestations.

        Something isn’t quite sitting right, like maybe a circular argument or a tautology…it’s like saying, “You can only be aware of perceptions of manifestations that you can perceive.” What am I missing?

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 8:17 PM

        You are missing nothing. 🙂
        Do you have a problem with that?


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 8:40 PM

        Well…I guess not – if your only purpose is to make the point that there is no knowing except through perception and that perception itself will always leave one short of total knowing.

        The only problem I see is that people think it is saying something about what is or isn’t or may be outside the physical universe or outside of the experience of perception – but it’s not. Or is it?

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 9:42 PM

        Like the terms in an infinite series, there can be infinite levels of perception as i see it. MEST perception is just one such level.


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 10:38 PM

        The word “perception” usually means of MEST, and I would include under MEST thoughts, considerations and any other energy manifestations of the mind – i.e. mental MEST – these are essentially the same as physical universe MEST, just not of a consensus reality. Does that cover the realm of possible perceptions?

      • vinaire  On November 4, 2011 at 6:36 AM

        This is what I have written about Perception:


  • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 3:03 PM

    Looks like you are a busy boy with little time right now for blog comments.

    Just thought I’d add one more sassy comment. You told me:

    “Now, take a break and really look if their is a consideration that you are taking for granted with respect to knowing and knowledge.”

    Wasn’t that my question to you? 😉

    • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 4:39 PM

      It is not a matter of whose question to who. We all are responsible for our own knowingness. I don’t push anybody to answer my questions. I take responsibility for my own knowingness.

      Mine was just a suggestion to you. I don’t expect any compliance. You do what you think is appropriate for you.


    • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 5:02 PM

      So have I managed to throw the comm cycle off the rails? Sorry! I’m not sure how I do that sometimes. Maybe we can make up and start over? (You used to love me, ya know. :-))

      Well, you did answer my question by saying the postulate was “intuition.” But the way you phrased it I wasn’t sure if that was only as much as you had time to say right now or not. And if there’s more, does it not seem to be a fair question for me to pursue? I’m just trying to get a grasp of your theory, starting from the original premise.

      Also, I presented some other ideas and would really like to know your response to them, to see if I’m on the right track. Isn’t that at least one of the purposes of this comment section? (I seem to be getting myself into trouble lately by asking questions, so correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not interested in achieving nothing more than an ARC break with someone I like and admire ;-)).

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM

        I believe that all the answers are within the person. Nobody can ever fully answer another’s questions.

        I love you still. Do you want a personal session to help you find your answers? We can do it on phone or Skype.


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 7:20 PM

        🙂 That is a sweet offer. Especially with the “love you still” part. Can I have a rain check on it? For now, the path I feel is right for me involves not auditing of any kind but exchanging ideas with others, live or through their writings or other media. I guess it’s sort of like the Buddhist path consisting of seeking knowledge (you would know much better than I about Buddhism, though). It’s the actual back and forth, however, that has been beneficial in a way that lone study hasn’t – I haven’t quite nailed down what it is. In any case, I’ve been winning on it, and YOU have been a contributor, actually. (Even with this idea of yours about self, you have me leaning a bit more in your direction, surprisingly!)

        I’m sure you are right about answers within oneself, as the ultimate answers – but my readiness is for the direction that others can “point my mind” toward. You just answered one of my comments above and my reply is still in moderation so I’ll wait for your answer to that. 🙂

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 7:47 PM

        Actually, we are having a session here through a blog. 🙂

        I was not talking about auditing. This is a discussion session that encourages one to look for themselves.

        The attention is on knowledge, and not on self (each other).


      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 8:05 PM

        Okay, cool. Auditing also encourages one to look for themselves, but auditors do not give out data or their own notions to the pc – the exchange of those things in this kind of session is really great too. Each has its place and value, IMO. Thanks!

      • marildi  On November 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM

        Btw, part of the “secret” of this type of session is the aspect of putting one’s thoughts in writing – taking the time needed to do so without the usual social considerations of comm lag or whatever, working things out as one writes, seeing things differently mid reply and starting over again, sometimes refining the final version to be sure it is understandable and thus getting an even better understanding. 🙂

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 9:40 PM

        In these sessions, due to the nature of KHTK, ego of either participant is not there.

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2011 at 9:45 PM

        More important in these sessions is how one arrives at one’s thought. Purity in looking leads to purity of thought,


      • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 3:39 AM

        So how am I doing? (joke! :-D)

      • vinaire  On November 4, 2011 at 6:38 AM

        You are doing what Marildi does. Let’s continue our sessions.


      • vinaire  On November 4, 2011 at 8:34 AM

        In KHTK sessions, the Guide can provide data to the person without being evaluative. The KHTK principles guard one against harmful evaluations.


      • vinaire  On November 4, 2011 at 3:36 PM

        An evaluation is harmful when it is directed at the person.

        An evaluation is not harmful when it is directed at the data of interest.


      • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

        But even that can be handled by KHTK. (Whew!)

  • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 2:18 PM

    I’m going to resist the impulse to ask what “doing what marildi does” is supposed to mean… 😉 since I want to get back to the great discussion. 🙂

    • vinaire  On November 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM

      That’s good, because the answer is unknowable.


      • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 2:51 PM

        I am infinite manifestation. Wow.

      • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM

        I meant that as – wow! Has a nice ring to it – infinite manifestation. Yeah.

  • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    Okay, I read your essay on perception and it seems to include what I figured – both mental and physical universe manifestations. I wondered how you would fit in the findings of information science – the branch of physics that studies information that is NEWLY created and stored by living organisms, information which then changes the physical (and subsequently mental) universe – thus bringing about additions to the realm of perceivable manifestations. (Now, that’s a conundrum – going from infinite to “even more infinite”? Ha ha – infinite squared!)

    But getting back to the Unknowable – what does it have to do with anything outside of manifestations?

    (Btw, you are part of the family, my dear cousin Vinnie, and I want you to join the party over on Geir’s latest blog thread – celebrating post #100 since starting the blog. Let’s start off the next 100 with a bang! ;-))

  • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM

    Amend last word to: Big Bang. 😀

  • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 4:44 PM

    Vinnie, maybe you’re busy in the fast lane at the moment, but you haven’t forgotten my question about Unknowable, have you? (i.e. whether it has to do with anything other than the sphere of manifestations).

    • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 6:13 PM

      Here is what I’ve got so far. You are simply (1) conceiving and labeling (as Unknowable) an existence “outside of” or apart from the universe of manifestations/perception of, and (2) stating that this existence is unknowable in terms of perception of manifestations.

      If that is the whole theory, one problem I’m having is that it contradicts itself by conceiving/assuming an unperceived and unperceivable existence. However, if it accepts other ways of knowing, such as intuition for example, that would maintain a consistency.

      • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 9:31 PM

        Vinnie, where are you? I can’t dance alone, come waltz with Mathilda…

      • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 10:10 PM


  • vinaire  On November 4, 2011 at 10:13 PM

    Hi Marildi, I am done with the Unknowable for now. At the moment I am studying Quantum Mechanics from this article:

    It is interesting to notice that “quantization” was first employed by Max Planck as a mathematical trick to explain the full spectrum of thermal radiation. He accomplished this by assuming that energy was radiated as integral numbers of packets of energy at each frequency, and each energy packet consisted of an amount proportional to its characteristic frequency.

    Hope you are having fun looking.

    • marildi  On November 4, 2011 at 10:25 PM

      Fair enough, Vinnie. I think that’s a great pursuit. Have fun!

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 2:47 AM

        p.s. That was one hell of an intuitive assumption by Planck. 😉

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 6:38 AM

    Looks like over the last couple of hundred years mathematics has served as the means of perception. Mathematics has provided insights into the nitty-gritty by explaining experiemental results. Where it seems to be failing is when there are no experimental results to explain.

    Mathematics has also been useful in philosophy. It has been mentioned in the past literature that the idea of Brahma and zero paralleled each other. I expressed that idea in the following article


    Now it seems that the old vedic process “neti, neti” parallels the idea of an infinite series to arrive at the understanding of Brahma through Looking. I am calling it “unknowable” to make it a challange. Maybe somewhere here there is a calculus of spirituality waiting to be discovered.


    • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM

      I see now how the construction of this universe is mathematical as it is nothing but quantities.

      Mathematics as (quoting you) “a means of perception” sounds like a means of discovering physical manifestations other than looking directly at the physical universe. I guess it could be called looking through the via of mind manifestations, i.e. those considerations (in the mind) involving mathematical conceptions.

      And that type of indirect looking may be what “intuition” actually is. If it’s true, as information science states (assuming my understanding is correct), that ALL information is “stored” or buried in both the physical and in living cells, then that information is potentially perceivable. Down to the nitty-gritty and the neti-neti. 🙂

      The difference between scientists and philosophers may be the difference between searching for stored info in physical universe manifestations and searching for stored info in the manifestations within the mind – which may be stored not only in the brain (physical universe) but in the energy field of the mind around or near the body.

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 3:59 PM

        Actually, now I remember that due to certain physics laws information in non-living structures is not permanent. Only in living cells can “room” for information expand and be permanent. (I’m going to have to review that, though.)

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        “Biological systems are different from purely physical systems primarily because they create, store, and communicate information. Living things store information in a memory of the past that they use to shape their future. Fundamental physical objects like atoms have no history.”

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      In my opinion anything that one can be aware of can also be quantified, even if one quantifies it merely as a consideration.

      That is why I feel that there is room for a calculus of spirituality.


      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        What is referred to as the “theta universe” I interpret as including everything in the mind (MEST, but not that of the physical universe), including thoughts and emotions. Is your idea of spirituality something like that?

        Considerations, for example, I think of as MEST constructs (constructions) in the mind.

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM

        “Created information structures range from galaxies, stars, and planets, to molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. They are the structures of terrestrial life from viruses and bacteria to sensible and intelligent beings. And they are the constructed ideal world of thought, of intellect, of spirit, including the laws of nature, in which we humans play a role as co-creator.”

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 5:34 PM

        I see spiritual as opposite of mechanical.


      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM

        I can’t make anything out of that. It says to me something like – spiritual is non-physical.

        Just how is it opposite of mechanical?

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 6:02 PM

        Mechanical means predictable relationships between parts.


      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 6:17 PM

        Brilliant. Is that yours??

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 6:18 PM

        Hey, that aligns with deterministic – predictable. Yes, opposite of mechanical makes makes iron-clad sense. 🙂

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 7:22 AM

    Einstein then had the intuition that it was in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation where the energy is concentrated, and not necessarily in the intensity of it. This explained the Photoelectric effect beautifully.

    “The relationship between the frequency of electromagnetic radiation and the energy of each individual photon is why ultraviolet light can cause sunburn, but visible or infrared light cannot. A photon of ultraviolet light will deliver a high amount of energy—enough to contribute to cellular damage such as a sunburn.”


    • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM

      Isn’t this what LRH was saying in Scn 8-80, where he stated that the finer the wave length the more its potential? There was the idea of intensity too.

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 3:30 PM

      However Einstein presented this observation in 1905 (even before Hubbard was born) in a way so it could be experimentally verified, and it was.


      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 3:41 PM

        Got it. Then Hubbard probably learned it from studying physics and Einstein.

        The data about specific wave lengths of different tone levels must have been intuitive, however.

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 5:04 PM

        When I said “must have been intuitive” I meant the perception of deeply buried information in the mind. Or perhaps he actually was able to perceive emotional wave lengths directly.

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 7:43 AM

    It is the impact by a single photon that is assumed to dislodge the electron from metal. This leads to the following concepts:

    (1) That there are energy packets (photons) of different energy, and not all photons have the same energy… quantization.

    (2) That electrons are bound in different metals at different levels of energy. … quantized energy levels.

    The word “quantum” comes from the Latin word for “how much” (as does “quantity”). Something which is “quantized”, like the energy of Planck’s harmonic oscillators, can only take specific values. For example, in most countries money is effectively quantized, with the “quantum of money” being the lowest-value coin in circulation. “Mechanics” is the branch of science that deals with the action of forces on objects, and so “quantum mechanics” is the part of mechanics that deals with objects for which particular properties are quantized.


  • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 8:13 AM

    Classical physics is a study of massed particles. For example, anomalous results may occur for individual electrons, but statistically a process of averaging will smooth out the results if a large enough number of electrons are emitted. Classical physics deals with principles based on averaging of results.

    Quantum physics is a study of individual particles, and the anamoly they bring to the table. It is true that a particular frequency is tied to a specific energy level, but

    Classical view: Energy level is dependent on frequency.
    Einstein: The frequency is dependent on the energy level.

    The frequency that will dislodge the electron from the metal is dependent on the energy level at which the electron is bound to the metal.


    • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 5:34 PM

      Now going from Information Science to Information Philosophy (caps are mine):

      “It is of the deepest philosophical significance that information is based on the mathematics of probability. If all outcomes were certain, there would be no ‘surprises’ in the universe. Information would be conserved and a universal constant, as some mathematicians mistakenly believe. Information philosophy requires the ontological uncertainty and probabilistic outcomes of modern quantum physics to produce new information.

      “But at the same time, without the extraordinary stability of QUANTIZED information structures over cosmological time scales, life and the universe we know would not be possible. Quantum mechanics reveals the architecture of the universe to be discrete rather than continuous, to be digital rather than analog.
      Moreover, the ‘correspondence principle’ of quantum mechanics and the ‘law of large numbers’ of statistics ensures that macroscopic objects can normally AVERAGE out microscopic uncertainties and probabilities to provide the “adequate determinism” that shows up in all our ‘Laws of Nature.'”

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 5:46 PM

        I believe that underlying the discrete nature there is a common denominator that makes it appear discrete.


      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 5:59 PM

        Would a foundational “field” of uncoalesced waves qualify as non-discrete?

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 6:03 PM

        You tell me. 🙂


      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM

        But then you’ve stolen MY theory. 😉

        Seriously, QM seems to be pointing in that direction and I’ve been postulating this “field” would be as spiritual as it gets short of Static. And once the field itself is perceived – directly – the veil is pierced.

      • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 7:01 PM

        Actually, that field could be perceived in the physical universe directly OR in the mind’s informational manifestations – also perceived directly. Perhaps that is where the physical and the spiritual literally meet.

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2011 at 3:39 PM

    It is the energy levels that are quantized, and not the frequency.


    • marildi  On November 5, 2011 at 4:31 PM

      Got it! Seems systematic and Occam’s razor, even with my sketchy understanding.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2011 at 6:32 AM

    (1) At Quantum Mechanics level, the means of perception seems to be mathematics that provides consistent and systematic means for thinking.

    (2) Light and other physical means fail to support direct physical observation at the level of atomic dimensions.

    (3) Even when we can magnify “atoms” using an electron miroscope, the means of feedback has a wavelength comparable to the dimensions we are trying to observe physically. Thus, waves don’t reflect the way they do at “macro dimensions,” and we don’t exactly “see” what is there.

    (4) Thus, one may say that the study at Quantum levels involves the use of “thought waves” to interpret observable macro phenomenon into “seeing” what is there at atomic dimensions.

    (5) One may call it “mathematical modeling.” It is much more precise than any imagination because it makes use of the consistency of systematic thinking.

    (6) This may also be called “remote viewing.”


    • marildi  On November 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM

      1) Mathematics seems almost synonymous with systematic. Like it!

      2) What I had in mind for direct observation was the kind of thing Elizabeth and Maria speak of experiencing, a perception that is not via the body (eyes, etc.).

      3) Any microscope is again a via, an indirect perception, and as you indicate, in the case of subatomic particles distorts the actuality (as does any via, probably).

      4) This one I wasn’t sure I got. Could you elaborate?

      5) So-called “imagination” may at times be something else, i.e. the direct looking into one’s own mind (the one who is “imagining”).

      6) Too bad that’s taken! But it could be an apt new definition. In any case, even when evidence is remotely discovered, it’s great when science can find such for what may be otherwise discredited as unreliable intuition (though it may or may not be reliable).

      I’m so glad you are posting notes on your study of QM, etc.!

      • marildi  On November 7, 2011 at 12:33 AM

        On #5), by looking into one’s own mind I was referring to direct perception into information structures that theoretically (as per information science) store information going back to the beginning of time. That part of the “mind” may or may not be contained in the brain or other cells of living organisms. It may be in the field (called the “mind” by LRH, I believe) around the body or possibly around a being without a body.

    • marildi  On November 8, 2011 at 7:30 PM

      ‘Imagination is more important than knowledge.’
      –Albert Einstein

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 8:06 PM

        Knowledge is imagination.


      • marildi  On November 8, 2011 at 8:28 PM

        I can probably “imagine” what you mean ;-). But we do differentiate between (1) knowledge through perception (your favorite) and (2) that derived in the mind (either by reasoning [logic or mathematics] or by means of intuition) OR (3) that contrived in the mind – the usual definition, right?

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 9:28 PM

        Perception is programmed “imagination” so to speak.


      • marildi  On November 8, 2011 at 9:45 PM

        Not quite entirely. There’s the “probablity” factor that allows for new, unprogrammed, not pre-determined…creativity, i.e. choice by Free Will.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 9:48 PM

        Then that’s creative “imagination.” 🙂


      • marildi  On November 8, 2011 at 10:02 PM

        🙂 Like.

        I love it that both QM and information science can scientifically account for and attest to “something new under the sun.” Existence is more inspiring that way.

        Hey, how’s the quantum physics study going? Any new notes to share?

  • marildi  On November 6, 2011 at 4:10 PM

    Vin, below is an excerpt from Elizabeth’s comments on Geir’s “If you travel at the speed of light” thread, which I thought should be posted on this “Research into Unknowable” thread of yours.

    Elizabeth apparently has directly perceived subatomic light particles and in her comment describes the interaction of those particles as well as what happens as they hit “objects” or “surfaces” – descriptions quite similar (I think) to QM theories. Where she talks about “no such thing as ‘dark’” in the second paragraph, although she calls them particles I wonder if she is speaking of that field of non-discrete waves or wavefunctions.

    Note that I have taken the liberty to correct spelling errors. As you know, English isn’t her native language. Note also that in that same thread discussion, Maria stated that her perception (I get it as “out of body”) is just like what was on the video in the opening post. Here is the excerpt of Elizabeth’s post:

    “…in colors…I have seen everything how that is in space the light moves. I have seen as from the source the particles move across the dark space and the particles touch some of the objects on their travel, some bounce and flow backward open wide like [a] funnel and disperse in space, and the rest of the light particles move forward until [they] reach other surfaces …the particles look [like] they have arrived but they are there only a moment and they flow backward and intermingle with the incoming flows, that intermingling; incoming and outgoing particles gives the illusion of the brightness of the surface.

    “I see every light particle as they disperse in the darkness and that is the reason there is no such a thing as ‘dark’ because light particles float about from every direction going every direction. Some of these light particles collide and they make the change and force other particles into different directions. If vast particles of light collide then there is an explosion of light, the particles move, burst.

    “When one sees the movement of light there is no experience of movement but a continual evolvement of those particles.

    “The being does not move does not go exterior or interior. The being is intangible- infinite than how the HELL THAT CAN MOVE and travel with the speed of light? How…intangible infinite could be moved?”

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM

    Mathematics serves to focus thought “waves” toward greater consistency. Logic is another way of doing that. I am sure there are other ways too.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 10:24 PM

    Modern Quantum Mechanics is all about the dual nature of existence…

    Is it wave-like?

    Or, is it particle like?


    • marildi  On November 8, 2011 at 10:33 PM

      Oh wow, I thought it was considered to be both – one or the other, depending. But I don’t know much more than the bit about waves being collapsed into particles upon observation.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 10:46 PM

        Reality is very obliging.
        If you want to see it as a wave, it appears as a wave.
        If you want to see it as a particle, it appears as a particle.
        At least at quantum levels,


      • marildi  On November 8, 2011 at 10:53 PM

        I remember something about experiments where the subjects decide whether they want more “1’s” or more “0’s” to occur on a computer. Do those one’s and zero’s relate directly to waves and particles?

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM

        I need to look at the details of that experiment. Do you have a reference?


      • marildi  On November 9, 2011 at 1:10 PM

        It’s talked about in this video, among other things. Here’s a great quote from the video about the “field” as the actuality of the universe:

        “…realm of pure abstraction…and that’s what the unified field is. It’s pure abstract potential, pure abstract being, pure abstract self-aware consciousness, which rises in waves of vibration to give rise to the particles, the people, everything we see in the vast universe.”

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 7:54 PM

        Yes, a unified field, which is full of potential, seems to be a reasonable postulate. The observation that this potential can be activated through intention as in the random number generator experiment, is fascinating. I would like to observe that experiment first hand myself.

        There does not seem to be enough data yet to raise the above postulate (conjecture) to the level of a scientific theory. Hopefully we’ll get there.


      • marildi  On November 9, 2011 at 8:56 PM

        Yes, I agree – fascinating. Changes one’s world view somehow, too, just knowing about QM findings.

        Why do you say not enough data? In the video they claim that there have been hundreds of these experiments with the random number generators over a period of several decades – and that they show intention does affect what happens.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM

        Do you believe everything you hear?

        Where is the evidence?


      • marildi  On November 9, 2011 at 10:20 PM

        Good point. I admit I did assume that what was said was true – that there have been hundreds of tests that confirm. And the fact that there supposedly were “hundreds” helped convince me. But are you assuming there is no convincing evidence? And isn’t there a way to find out?

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2011 at 6:04 AM

        It is convincing to me to the degree I can examine it personally, and that it is consistent with everything I already know.


      • marildi  On November 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM

        Earlier, you said, “There does not seem to be enough data yet to raise the above postulate (conjecture) to the level of a scientific theory.” I’m curious what you based that on.

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM

        Has it been published in a recognized scientific journal as a scientific theory yet?


      • marildi  On November 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM

        That I do not know. Do you know that it hasn’t? This was actually my question.

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM

        All I know is that the day any theory relating consciousness to physical phenomena is published in a recognized scientific journal, it is going to be a watershed moment.

        I haven’r heard of any such moment as yet.


    • marildi  On November 10, 2011 at 7:29 PM

      “Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986.[9] PEAR [Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory] founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance.“

      “Statistical significance” but I wonder how OT’s (with probably higher than normal intention) might increase the effect size. Or take any group – after doing TR 8. 😉

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 10:27 PM

    A manifestation cannot be pinpointed both as a wave, or as a particle, in the same instant.

    Quantum Mechanics is at the forefront of probing into the nature of reality.

    From Eastern philosophy’s point of view, neither form (wave or particle) is everlasting. It is impermanent. It gets created. It gets dissolved.

    Maybe, the wave form exists at the end and at the beginning of a cycle. Maybe, the particle form exists in the middle part of a cyccle (when the cycle is being sustained).


    • marildi  On November 9, 2011 at 9:06 PM

      “It gets created. It gets dissolved.”

      What level of physical – or mental/spiritual – reality are they in Eastern
      philosophy referring to?

      Your last paragraph sounds like a way of describing the cycle of
      as-isness / isness / as-isness. And I wonder if that applies to both the
      physical universe and “theta” universe (of thought).

  • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 3:10 AM

    More research data for you.

    November 9, 2011 blog post by Elizabeth Hamre OT:

    “Tonight I happened to catch a show by Nova: Elegant Universe…Einstein…..

    “I don’t know those things and ’til now I had no clue what QP meant. Yet I have reality on it since I do see those things while having sessions and cognitions. Also, they have talked about tiny light particles which has sounds. “String Theory” they have called those. I have seen those many times that is the reason I said over and over again no such a thing as dark, because of them floating about. Also I have heard their sound and in my posting I called that effect Universal Harmony a sound so beautiful that it can’t be described.

    “I also looked into gravity in sessions and I have seen more than one kind and I do understand what they do to the person’s “personal energy-universe”. I have run on gravity quite a few sessions since I have found the idea interesting.

    “I am not a scientific person and never dwelled into that field. But I have found it interesting that scientists are looking at possibilities of having the existence of different universes. Sometime back I have become aware of a new reality that I am not the only one who says Elizabeth Hamre but who knows how many beings claim the same body at the same time, and I know for the fact that I am not having sessions alone or the cognitions are only mine. Definitely not.

    “PS: About the String Theory, was said not likely they ever can prove it exists so it will remain theory. I found it interesting, also an acknowledgement that my reality is out there in theory form.

    “Yes, auditing works., no doubt about it.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: