From finite to infinity 1/2

Movement and perception


« Can a move­ment roo­ted in the uni­verse of real ever reach the truth ? » [1]


An experience between perception and reality

So far so good…

A few years ago, I expe­rien­ced a rather unu­sual per­cep­tion of move­ment. It was during a para­gli­ding flight, an acti­vi­ty I was doing for the first time. I was very appre­hen­sive about the takeoff. I was total­ly focu­sed on the idea that I was going to jump off into the void. And it’s not a small thing to say because at the time, void (vacuum) was abso­lu­te­ly emp­ty for me !  Still, when I took off, not only was I not thin­king about the flight itself, but I was very far from thin­king about landing.

To my great relief, I dis­co­ve­red that para­gli­ding is not about jum­ping into vacuum. We run, let the wind get into the sail and take off just by let­ting our­selves be car­ried. Tranquilized by this final­ly very fluid depar­ture, I star­ted to relax and enjoy the flight. In fact, I alter­na­ted bet­ween relaxa­tion and small frights skill­ful­ly given by a slight­ly tea­sing ins­truc­tor. Two spins and a for­tui­tous takeo­ver later, howe­ver, eve­ry­thing was going pret­ty well.


Nothing’s going on anymore

That’s when the lan­ding loo­med. And some­thing real­ly, real­ly unex­pec­ted hap­pe­ned. My phy­si­cal des­cent was stea­dy, yet I had the per­cep­tion of coming down to the ground in jerks. It was as if the image I per­cei­ved of the ground was fro­zen and sud­den­ly ener­gy was relea­sed to form a dif­ferent image.

There was no regu­la­ri­ty in the time­line, so my brain expe­rien­ced a gap bet­ween what it saw and what it expec­ted to see. The images fol­lo­wed each other but were not lin­ked.  Intermediate images were mis­sing. Paradoxically, I had the fee­ling that the ground was coming fast. Too fast. Because while my brain was trying to fill in the mis­sing images, a new image was coming up. It was not in the conti­nui­ty of the pre­vious one, and it infor­med me that I was much clo­ser to the ground than it had estimated.

This lack of consis­ten­cy in my pro­gress was very uncom­for­table. I wish I’d clo­sed my eyes to stop this weird­ness.  But this option was com­ple­te­ly out of the ques­tion. Indeed, the ins­truc­tor had insis­ted on one thing : as soon as my feet were in contact with the ground, I would have to run to accom­pa­ny the lan­ding move­ment. I was alrea­dy having trouble asses­sing when this would hap­pen with my eyes open, I couldn’t afford to close them !

I was also pro­ba­bly hoping that eve­ry­thing would be back to nor­mal before the point of impact. But it wasn’t. So I was only able to start run­ning when I felt the moni­tor run­ning behind me. And above all tell me to do it ener­ge­ti­cal­ly too ! Finally, a few seconds after rea­ching land, my per­cep­tions retur­ned to nor­mal.


Perception and physical interpretation

A little philosophy

In one of their dia­logues, David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti set out the basis of the rela­tion­ship bet­ween the linear move­ment we per­ceive and take for rea­li­ty, and the real move­ment, which is at the ori­gin of linear movement.

Krishnamurti : « (…) Nothingness has (…) its own move­ment, in the form of an ener­gy – still to be defi­ned – which can then act within rea­li­ty (…) The move­ment we know is time – the dis­tance bet­ween here and there and so forth. (…) There is a nothin­gness whose move­ment is nei­ther the move­ment of thought nor the move­ment of time.

David Bohm : There’s a theo­ry that this move­ment you’re tal­king about – the « time­less » move­ment – exists. It is not ins­cri­bed in time, but it is in time that it mani­fests itself, that it reveals itself. 

Krishnamurti : We say the same thing but dif­fe­rent­ly (…) » [2]


A stubborn illusion



Nassim Haramein has a very simi­lar point of view. For him, uni­form rec­ti­li­near motion – dear to iner­tial refe­rence frames and the­re­fore to iso­la­ted sys­tems – sim­ply cor­res­ponds to our per­cep­tion of move­ment at our scale of rea­li­ty. But nothing moves that way. The real move­ment takes place towards the sub­ato­mic scale, which is why we do not expe­rience it direct­ly. More pre­ci­se­ly, this move­ment is that of the feed­back loop, of the conti­nuous feed­back at work bet­ween vacuum and mat­ter.

It could be des­cri­bed as the fact that on a quan­tum scale light appears, disap­pears, appears, disap­pears… all the time. And each time, it reap­pears at a very close but never­the­less dif­ferent loca­tion from the pre­vious one, giving the impres­sion, on our scale, that it has a uni­form rec­ti­li­near move­ment as well as phy­si­cal attri­butes such as a mea­su­rable speed. What actual­ly hap­pens is that mat­ter is constant­ly being made and undone at the speed of light.

Therefore, the per­cep­tion of this under­lying move­ment escapes to us. And not only do we not per­ceive this move­ment, but we per­ceive ins­tead a conti­nuous move­ment. When we move our hand from point A to point B, for example, the move­ment then for­med and « ancho­red in the uni­verse of real » is not the real move­ment at work. Rather, our hand appears and disap­pears in a dyna­mic of expan­sion / contrac­tion.


Real-life cinema

Cinema pro­vides a good ana­lo­gy for this pro­cess. Successive and slight­ly dif­ferent images are prin­ted and inter­sper­sed with « voids » on sil­ver film. When the film is pro­jec­ted at the right speed for us – 24 frames per second in the cine­ma – it creates the illu­sion of conti­nuous move­ment. This illu­sion of move­ment results from the so-called phi effect, which, com­bi­ned with reti­nal per­sis­tence, allows the brain to auto­ma­ti­cal­ly and cohe­rent­ly link two suc­ces­sive still images.

My expe­rience in para­gli­ding has some­how given me a glimpse of the move­ment under­lying the one we per­ceive at our scale and which gives us the illu­sion of conti­nui­ty in form.


The illusion of measurement



« Any mea­su­re­ment is an illu­sion. » [3]


With illu­so­ry move­ment, illu­so­ry mea­su­re­ment. For example, when we cal­cu­late the speed of our hand moving from point A to point B, we impli­cit­ly consi­der that this move­ment is linear, and that it is rela­ted only to us. But if we consi­der, like Nassim Haramein, that rea­li­ty is quite dif­ferent and that eve­ry­thing is connec­ted in the uni­verse (see the articles that present the uni­fied field theo­ry), we can no lon­ger cal­cu­late the speed of this move­ment in the way we usual­ly do. To the speed of move­ment bet­ween A and B, we must now add the speed of rota­tion of the Earth on its axis, plus the speed of rota­tion of the Earth around the sun, plus the speed of rota­tion of the galaxy etc.

In other words, not only is there no lon­ger any uni­form rec­ti­li­near move­ment, but the mea­su­re­ment made is no lon­ger mea­ning­ful. Certainly, this mea­su­re­ment cor­res­ponds to the move­ment we per­ceive, and in this res­pect it is valid and use­ful in our frame of refe­rence because the speeds are very far from that of light. However, if we are not aware that this fra­me­work needs to be broa­de­ned in order to have a more accu­rate view of things, we are mis­sing an essen­tial rea­li­ty, name­ly the true nature of move­ment and the illu­sion of measurement.


Taking the measurement of consciousness


In a rather unex­pec­ted way, the pro­ble­ma­tic lin­ked to the phy­si­cal mea­su­re­ment brings us back direct­ly to the ques­tio­ning lin­ked to the rea­li­ty of conscious­ness. The point of view of the Dutch car­dio­lo­gist Pim Von Lommel is enligh­te­ning on this subject :


« (…) Today science is limi­ted only to what is visible and eve­ry­thing you can’t mea­sure doesn’t exist. Then the pro­blem of conscious­ness arises because conscious­ness can­not be mea­su­red. It is not pos­sible to prove the contents of conscious­ness. Science must take into account the sub­jec­tive cri­te­ria of the human being and not only the objec­tive cri­te­ria. Transformation is the objec­tive aspect of a sub­jec­tive expe­rience [for example : the change that takes place in patients who have expe­rien­ced an NDE, who gene­ral­ly no lon­ger fear death] (…) There is no mea­su­re­ment of conscious­ness for mate­ria­lis­tic science, there is only mat­ter, so for these scien­tists conscious­ness is an illu­sion ». [4]


For these scien­tists, conscious­ness is an illu­sion, and mea­su­re­ment a rea­li­ty. For Nassim Haramein, conscious­ness is a rea­li­ty – it gene­rates mat­ter – and mea­su­re­ment depends on the frame of refe­rence considered.


Stop infinity ?

Finally, the pro­blem of mea­su­re­ment leads us straight to that of infi­ni­ty. The fact that our equa­tions pre­dict infi­ni­ty, in the infi­ni­te­ly small as well as in the infi­ni­te­ly large, indeed raises a new ques­tion : to what extent can a mea­su­re­ment make sense in an infi­nite uni­verse ? As we shall see, for many phy­si­cists, this ques­tion does not arise pre­ci­se­ly to the extent that they seek to stop infi­ni­ty. In quan­tum phy­sics in par­ti­cu­lar, they use, as we will see in the next article, a pro­cess of renor­ma­li­za­tion to make their cal­cu­la­tions pos­sible… and to legi­ti­mize the rea­li­ty of their measurements.



Key points

  • Any uni­form rec­ti­li­near move­ment is an illu­sion crea­ted by our perception.

  • The only move­ment that takes place is bet­ween vacuum and mat­ter, through feed­back loops.





Notes and references

[1] KRISHNAMURTI Jiddu and BOHM David, Les limites de la pen­sée, Paris : Le livre de poche, 2006, p.83, free trans­la­tion
[2] Ibid., p.118
[3] BOHM David, Ibid., p.209
[4] VAN LOMMEL Pim. (August 2011). [Video]. Expérience de conscience et NDE- Dr Pim Van Lommel 6/9, free translation


Leave a Reply

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

©2018–2023 My quan­tum life All rights reserved