Metaphysics and physics

Consciousness and energy 1/3

metaphysics-and-physics

If I were asked what the uni­verse is made of, I would spon­ta­neous­ly talk about conscious­ness and infor­ma­tion. Energy would not come very far, and it would be appro­priate to bring it into the equa­tion. Indeed it is ener­gy that allows the exchange of infor­ma­tion in the uni­verse, an exchange that is essen­tial for the advan­ce­ment of conscious­ness. One could say that ener­gy and conscious­ness are neces­sa­ry and suf­fi­cient for the per­ma­nent co-creation of phy­si­cal and meta­phy­si­cal exis­tence. Or that there is a syner­gis­tic inter­ac­tion bet­ween ener­gy and conscious­ness at all scales.

Standard phy­sics only stu­dies ener­gy, mat­ter and motion, but Nassim Haramein’s uni­fied field theo­ry adds conscious­ness. In fact, this phy­si­cist seems to have unders­tood that phy­sics stems from meta­phy­sics, and that the two are self-sustaining.

Precisely, his theo­ry gives ano­ther point of view on the para­doxes and other oddi­ties that are at the basis of stan­dard phy­sics. In this series of articles, we will thus approach dif­fe­rent­ly the iso­la­ted sys­tems, the renor­ma­li­za­tion of infi­ni­ty, the rota­tion of celes­tial objects in an appa­rent­ly fric­tion­less envi­ron­ment since the big bang. We will ques­tion the exis­tence of dark mat­ter and dark ener­gy, vacuum, time, space… So many new inter­pre­ta­tions that arise from conscious­ness and its link with energy.

 

Consciousness is first

To seek an inter­pre­ta­tion or an expla­na­tion of the uni­verse and what com­poses it is the same as explo­ring conscious­ness. We can­not escape conscious­ness. Because conscious­ness is first [1].

However, conscious­ness also emerges in the uni­verse thanks to a spe­ci­fic ener­ge­tic dyna­mic. Consciousness is first and it emerges in the uni­verse ? This may seem para­doxi­cal… unless we remove two sources of confu­sion. The first one is to consi­der conscious­ness only from the point of view of the Ego. As human beings who expe­rience awa­re­ness as soon as we come into the world, we tend to think that conscious­ness emerges in our per­cep­tion. This is true, but it is very reduc­tive for consciousness.

Second source of confu­sion : we can also think that our men­tal is nothing other than our conscious­ness itself.

 

Energy allows consciousness to experience itself

conscience-et-metaphysiqueOnly expe­rience can help us to remove these confu­sions. At least that’s my point of view since the expan­sion of conscious­ness I expe­rien­ced in 2013. My conscious­ness was syn­chro­ni­zed with my men­tal and its linear func­tio­ning, until a phy­sio­lo­gi­cal pres­sure – a rup­tu­red aneu­rysm – took it out of this mecha­nis­tic pro­cess. Then it shif­ted into an immen­se­ly lar­ger space, as if it was regai­ning a natu­ral flow, to which my per­cep­tion had never had access before. Thus, I became aware for a moment of the vast­ness of my conscious­ness, and espe­cial­ly of its pri­ma­cy [2].

In a more gene­ral way, expe­rience induces a dif­fe­ren­tial of conscious­ness through which the lat­ter pro­gresses. From this point of view, conscious­ness only makes sense in expe­rience. On the other hand, from the point of view of pre­sence [3] – the state in which I found myself during the expan­sion of my conscious­ness – the dif­fe­ren­tial indu­ced by expe­rience no lon­ger exists [4].

Presence is like conscious­ness that would not know itself through expe­rience. Only the expe­rience allows to act, through the move­ment that gene­rates the dif­fe­ren­tials of conscious­ness… and the­re­fore of expe­riences. One could say that expe­rience is the foun­da­tion of awareness. 

What does ener­gy have to do with it ? Well, ener­gy allows the expe­rience of conscious­ness. Until the emer­gence of self-awareness, and even­tual­ly the rea­li­za­tion that conscious­ness is pri­ma­ry and under­lies its own experience.

This dyna­mic involves an observer.

 

The question of the observer

The observer in physics and metaphysics

« In phy­sics, an obser­ver is a hypo­the­ti­cal per­son with ins­tru­ments for mea­su­ring space and time, obser­ving from her frame of refe­rence the expe­ri­ments that take place at dif­ferent loca­tions in space (…) In quan­tum phy­sics, the condi­tions for mea­su­ring the obser­ver are, in addi­tion, sub­ject to the pos­tu­lates of quan­tum mecha­nics, inclu­ding the prin­ciple of inde­ter­mi­na­cy. » [5]

In meta­phy­sics, an obser­ver is a conscious being. But he is not neces­sa­ri­ly aware of being aware… !

To the ques­tion « must one be aware of one­self in order to be able to observe or observe in order to become aware of one­self ? » the meta­phy­si­cian will ans­wer : both. Before adding a subt­le­ty. According to him, there are indeed two cate­go­ries of obser­vers : the spec­ta­tor and the obser­ver who is aware that he is obser­ving. The first one consi­ders him­self as without influence – per­haps even as objec­tive – whe­reas the second one is conscious of obser­ving the uni­verse from a sub­jec­tive point of view [6], of inter­pre­ting it and of par­ti­ci­pa­ting in it.

 

From observer to player

The dis­co­ve­ries of quan­tum phy­sics have ini­tia­ted an impor­tant reflec­tion on the place of the obser­ver and its link with conscious­ness. Until then, what we knew about phy­sics had never led to this ques­tio­ning. Indeed, at our scale, clas­si­cal objects behave in a regu­lar and pre­dic­tive way, giving us for example the right to think that if we leave a room, the objects it contains will still be there when we come back. It is as if things conti­nue whe­ther we observe them or not. Thus the influence of obser­va­tion can escape us.

On the other hand, at the quan­tum level, we can­not say any­thing like that. When we do not observe, there is a lack of know­ledge ; then, seve­ral rea­li­ties are pos­sible. This is what is cal­led quan­tum super­po­si­tion. From the moment we observe, the super­po­si­tion col­lapses, lea­ving only one reality.

What do the two scales have in com­mon ? Consciousness.

The obser­ver, in the meta­phy­si­cal sense of the term – the only one that is final­ly valid since conscious­ness is first – has an influence on the advan­ce­ment of com­plexi­ty and conscious­ness in the uni­verse. In return, the uni­verse has an influence on him.  As soon as the conscious­ness of the obser­ver changes, he no lon­ger observes his envi­ron­ment in the same way, which in turn influences the conscious­ness with which he per­ceives. Thus, his inter­pre­ta­tion is direct­ly lin­ked to his conscious­ness at the time he observes.

Thus each obser­ver being com­ple­te­ly invol­ved in the construc­tion of rea­li­ty, it would pro­ba­bly be more accu­rate to speak of players. Players are final­ly the very condi­tion of exis­tence of the play­ground, thanks to their consciousness.

 

The player and what happens in the universe are one and the same

According to the uni­fied field theo­ry, conscious­ness is a feed­back bet­ween our inner and outer worlds.

It is from the struc­ture of the double torus that Nassim Haramein began to unders­tand why and how conscious­ness emerges by feed­back.

                

double-torus-nassim-harameindouble-torus-dynamics

 

« To be self-aware, you have to know that you exist. This requires a feed­back. The struc­ture of the double torus allows this feed­back bet­ween what comes from the out­side and what returns to the inside, infor­ming the vacuum, then going back to the out­side. And when it returns to the out­side, the vacuum informs us of the result of the infor­ma­tion present in it. It is an exchange bet­ween our inter­nal unders­tan­ding and the expe­rience of the uni­verse, and the rela­tion of all the unders­tan­dings gathe­red in the vacuum affec­ting ours. So we don’t create our rea­li­ty, we co-create it with eve­ryone else. »  [7]  and [8]

          

The uni­verse uses a feed­back loop to observe itself at all scales. It actual­ly observes itself through all the conscious beings that evolve within it. More pre­ci­se­ly, it is the fun­da­men­tal level of who we are that per­pe­tual­ly radiates and col­lapses upon itself, in an infi­nite feed­back loop.

Thus, our obser­va­tions are not our own, because we do not observe the uni­verse from an exter­nal point of view. We are part of its own pro­cess of awa­re­ness. And we can use this pro­cess conscious­ly to direct the crea­tion and trace the path we wish to take, in co-creation with others [9].

For this, we use ener­gy. Energy fol­lows consciousness.

 

Energy follows consciousness


« We are bathed in a fun­da­men­tal ener­gy that is at the source of the crea­tion of the phy­si­cal world. This ener­gy is the vacuum, or the space that sur­rounds us. This space howe­ver is not emp­ty in the usual sense of the word but full of ener­gy, an ener­gy that connects abso­lu­te­ly eve­ry­thing. » [10]

 

Nassim Haramein puts here the rela­tion bet­ween vacuum, space and ener­gy. From the point of view of phy­sics, the vacuum does not exist.

From the point of view of meta­phy­sics, only conscious­ness and ener­gy exist. What is cal­led « space » is sim­ply ener­gy and unex­plo­red poten­tials (although from the men­tal point of view space exists and is per­cei­ved as empty).

 

Space is nothing but energy

Nassim Haramein is inter­es­ted in the vacuum and espe­cial­ly in the ener­gy it contains because it is for him the source of mat­ter. He dis­co­ve­red that the vacuum has a geo­me­tric struc­ture, that of the flo­wer of life in 3D.

the-vacuum-structure               

This struc­ture is infi­nite and covers what is com­mon­ly cal­led « space ». Space connects all scales, from the quan­tum level – where the equa­tions pre­dict that there is infi­nite ener­gy at eve­ry point – to the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal level. All the ener­gy is alrea­dy there, even if we are not aware of it.

Standard phy­sics volun­ta­ri­ly leaves out the vast majo­ri­ty of this ener­gy by using a renor­ma­li­za­tion pro­cess, which assi­gns a finite value to the ener­gy of the quan­tum vacuum.

« (…) Infinities that are absurd at first sight occur in the other par­tial theo­ries, but in all cases these infi­ni­ties can be can­cel­led by a pro­cess cal­led « renor­ma­li­za­tion ». Although this tech­nique is rela­ti­ve­ly dubious mathe­ma­ti­cal­ly, it seems to work in prac­tice and has been applied to these theo­ries to make pre­dic­tions that fit obser­va­tions with an extra­or­di­na­ry degree of accu­ra­cy. Renormalization, howe­ver, has a serious draw­back from the point of view of fin­ding a com­plete theo­ry, because it means that the actual values of the masses and the inten­si­ties of the forces can­not be pre­dic­ted by the theo­ry but must be cho­sen to fit the obser­va­tions. » [11] and [12]   

Stephen Hawking states here what allo­wed Nassim Haramein to find a com­plete theo­ry, taking into account the infi­nite with no need to use renor­ma­li­za­tion. Thus he suc­cee­ded in pre­dic­ting the real value of the mass of the pro­ton and of black holes in gene­ral, we will come back to this in article 2…

                   

Energy is equivalent everywhere


« Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are an exten­sion of space. From this point of view, the concept of space loses all mea­ning. »
[13]

flower-of-lifeSpace – or ener­gy – is a fluc­tua­tion at the source of our rea­li­ty. So ins­tead of seeing our­selves as a body, for example, we can see our­selves as being made up of tril­lions of cells. Each of these cells is com­po­sed of bil­lions of atoms. Inside each of these atoms, pro­tons cir­cu­late around each other at the speed of light. They are each made of 1055 tiny packets of ener­gy, cal­led Planck Spherical Units (PSU) or voxels by Nassim Haramein. These voxels consti­tute the fun­da­men­tal unit of the space-time fac­to­ry, assem­bled geo­me­tri­cal­ly accor­ding to the infi­nite struc­ture of the flo­wer of life in 3D.

There is no space bet­ween the par­ticles, there is only ener­gy. Moreover, the phy­si­cist shows that if we take into account the ener­gy contai­ned into the pro­ton, we can final­ly explain the dif­fe­rence in ener­gy den­si­ty bet­ween the quan­tum level and the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal level [14]. Finally the ener­gy is equal, equi­va­lent everywhere.

But if we consi­der that space does not exist, what hap­pens to the concepts of time and dimension ?

                  

Without space, what is time ?

Since the theo­ry of spe­cial rela­ti­vi­ty (Einstein, 1905), the concept of space is clo­se­ly asso­cia­ted with that of time. These notions have become inse­pa­rable and have a reci­pro­cal influence on each other. However, for Nassim Haramein, time is a human concept. He pre­fers to speak about space-memory. Indeed, accor­ding to him it is the memo­ry which is enco­ded on the frame of space, giving us the notion of the time which passes.

But whe­ther it is a ques­tion of memo­ry or time, if there is no space there is no space, you might right­ly say. I see memo­ry rather as packets of ener­gy and conscious­ness that become avai­lable from our human perspective.

This is in line with the meta­phy­si­cal pers­pec­tive where any mani­fes­ta­tion of ener­gy is an event [15], uncor­re­la­ted with time and space but in no way uncor­re­la­ted with conscious­ness. Time, like space, exists now­here else than in the men­tal. This one per­ceives linea­ri­ty and sepa­ra­tion, where eve­ry­thing is only reso­nance in the present moment.

            

Without space, what is a dimension ?

A dimen­sion is rela­tive to a mea­sure [16]. However, Nassim Haramein consi­ders that a dimen­sion refers to the scale or size of a struc­ture rather than to an orien­ta­tion in space. According to his theo­ry, there is an infi­nite num­ber of sca­lar dimen­sions [17], the smal­lest and most rele­vant to define our rela­tion­ship to the uni­verse being the voxel (Planck sphere). 1055 voxels – the mass of the uni­verse – fit into a single pro­ton. How is this pos­sible ? Because it is the holo­gra­phic mass, based on the infor­ma­tion [18]. The phy­si­cist also sho­wed that the uni­verse is frac­tal. The holo­frac­to­gra­phic nature of the uni­verse means that all pro­tons com­mu­ni­cate with each other.

If this is the case, it means that ener­gy is com­mu­ni­ca­tion, and this is what we will explore in the next article… !

 

 



Notes and references
   
     

[1] See the article on The strange loop of conscious­ness.
[2] Read My Story to learn more.
[3] Presence is a state. A sin­gu­lar state of conscious­ness. It is lived beyond words. From then on, words can only help us to define what pre­sence is not, i.e. non-presence (men­tal).
[4] See also the article on the conscious expe­rience on this topic.
[5] Source : Wikipédia, free trans­la­tion
[6]  See also the article objec­ti­vi­ty and sub­jec­ti­vi­ty : the uni­fied per­cep­tion.
[7] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by the Resonance Science Foundation.
[8] You can read the article on the frac­tal and holo­gra­phic uni­verse to learn more about the dyna­mics of the double torus. And also : the article on the prin­ciple of rhythm, and the one on the gen­der prin­ciple for a more meta­phy­si­cal pers­pec­tive.
[9] The emer­gence of conscious­ness raises the ques­tion of free will, I talk about it in the article Does free will exist ?
[10] HARAMEIN Nassim, June 2015, Conference in Brussels, free trans­la­tion
[11] HAWKING Stephen, A Brief History of Time, Ed.Flammarion, 2018, p.191, free trans­la­tion
[12] To learn more about the renor­ma­li­za­tion pro­cess, you can read the article From renor­ma­li­za­tion to frac­tals.
[13] EINSTEIN Albert, quo­ted by HARAMEIN Nassim, The Connected Universe [vidéo], 2015
[14] This dif­fe­rence is known in the stan­dard theo­ry as the worst pre­dic­tion ever made in phy­sics. For more infor­ma­tion, you can read the article Quantum gra­vi­ty and Schwarzschild pro­ton.
[15] See also the article on the prin­ciple of vibra­tion to have ano­ther point of view on time.
[16] Dimension, from the Latin dimen­sio mea­ning « action of mea­su­ring ».
[17] A sca­lar is a phy­si­cal quan­ti­ty that is spe­ci­fied only by its magni­tude (without any idea of direc­tion), and that is expres­sed with a num­ber fol­lo­wed or not by a unit.
[18] See the article Quantum gra­vi­ty and Schwarzschild pro­ton.

 




 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be publi­shed. Required fields are mar­ked *

©2018–2023 Ma vie quan­tique Tous droits réservés
0 Shares
Tweet
Share