The Science Wave: Probability Questions
Topics:
“The Science Wave: Probability Questions”
“Physicists Are Missing the Perception Piece”
“You Have To Be Participating In Something To Be Actually Creating It”
“Elements of Perception: Attention and Importance”
Sunday, October 23, 2022 (Private/In Person)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Peter (Stefan)
(Note: This is the second half of a session in which personal questions were asked in the first half.)
PETER: At the end of the group session yesterday, someone asked a question about when the science wave will end. You indicated it won't complete until our scientists generally accept or incorporate perception as fundamental in the creation of our objective reality, which some people might think might take hundreds of years or thousands, or a short time. So my question is going to come down in this area because I started to probe about that, because I've been reading lots of physics over the last couple of years, I'm very intuitive, et cetera.
I need to give a little bit of background to paint the picture to get to my question. Our physicists today, we have very successful theories of the very small, called quantum field theory where they describe everything as fields of energy, which is very consistent with the information you've provided, and [that] what we identify as particles, things like electrons, are just intensities in these fields of energy. Importantly, [in] their ability to predict how these particles and these intensities of these fields – where it might be the electron, which is the intensity in the electric field, or the photon, the intensity in the electromagnetic field – they use something called the Schrodinger equation, which is itself sometimes described as a wave equation because it inherently deals with what's called a wave function, where the mathematics is the amplitude of the wave function [that] gives the probability that the particle or intensity will be identified somewhere else.
Inherently, this is a probabilistic description of reality. This whole nature of this probabilistic nature of reality leads to what's called quanta, or very small things, existing in superposition of states. Lots of possible states famously express through something called “Schrodinger's cat experiment,” where the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until you look at it.
In physics, that whole issue is what's called the measurement problem, which is, “Why is that [in] physics they have the theory – which is an excellent theory, very verified – that tells them the world is inherently probabilistic, yet everything we experience is unitary, it's NOT probabilistic?” That's called the measurement problem. And there are lots of different explanations. The original, or the old one, was called the Copenhagen theory that said when you measure something, suddenly all these probabilities collapse into one thing. There's something called, which I don't well understand, De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, which seems to think that this probability wave leads reality, and there's something that's become quite accepted within the serious physicists called the Many Worlds philosophy, where the view is that actually every time one of these interactions occurs, a very small universe splits and another world is created and I'm experiencing just one me of many, many me’s in many, many worlds, which is also not inconsistent with what you said.
When I read this stuff, what they don't seem to be able to address is, What is this interaction? What is this action that results in me experiencing “this” reality, or “this” event, et cetera? There's a guy I've read a lot of his book called “Color Valley” who talks about physicists, who talks about a relational theory of quantum mechanics, that anytime something small relates to another thing small then this interaction occurs, and I think they call it decoherence. It goes from this probabilistic state to a single state.
When he uses that term, again he talks about interactions. And it seems to me that the whole idea of interaction is an action, and action is energy, but none of that has a character. So my question, which I think I started yesterday at the group session, is: You've told us that perception creates reality and perception is an action. Is that perception that action, the physical expression or translation of consciousness in the physical realm, that is this action or interaction that causes this decoherence or this so-called measurement to appear that things appear to be singular rather than probabilistic and multiple?
ELIAS: Yes.
PETER: Yes. Okay.
ELIAS: But that's both.
PETER: It's both probabilistic and single.
ELIAS: Yes. It's both. Because in that, there are moments that do create that split. It's not every choice; it isn't every choice that you make that will create probable realities, but certain choices that you make do create probable realities. And when you create a probable reality you create countless probable realities – you don't simply create one.
In that, as I've explained, there are points in your existence, in your life, that you generate what you would think of as life choices. What that means is, you're making a choice that directs you in a certain manner, that figuratively speaking you're engaging a certain path, that of all the possible paths that you could engage, you choose this one. And when you choose one, that's a life choice. It creates that split where there are all these other probable realities, every other possible choice that could be made in relation to the one you made are then made, and they are all being expressed all simultaneously in all these other probable realities. But you don't know that, because all you know is what you are experiencing in your single reality.
Now in that, at this point – for most of you – perception is only engaging your here-and-now reality. But the more aware you become, the more self-aware you become, the more you become aware of the reality of interconnectedness. And the more you become aware of interconnectedness in all events, forms and expressions, the more inclusive your perception becomes; therefore, the more your perception is directing of, in a manner of speaking, and the more you are aware of what your perception is doing.
Whether you're aware of it or not, your perception is creating probable realities at different times. That doesn't matter, whether you're aware of it or not. Your objective awareness, to this point, is considerably limited, but as you become more self-aware, you expand in relation to being more aware of what your perception is doing.
And your perception is, yes, a mechanism. It's a mechanism that creates all of reality. It creates every aspect of reality. It creates everything you see, everything you don't see. It creates on a cellular level, on an atomic level – it creates everything, EVERYTHING, literally.
Perception moves very much in conjunction with energy and time. Time is a very important factor. Einstein was moving in a correct direction, but they haven't quite moved past that yet. In that, he was moving in a correct direction in relation to time being a significant factor in relation to physical manifestation. Physical matter requires time. Without time, you cannot create physical matter – but you also cannot create physical matter without perception. That's the piece he didn't have. That's the piece they still don't acknowledge in relation to science, physics. And in that, they're still trying to assess and figure out where certain things go, what happens to certain things in relation to action with physical matter. But it's all about perception.
And the key with perception is that it's VERY influenced by what you're paying attention to. Therefore, that is one of the single most important pieces in relation to perception, and what drives it is attention. In that, as I said, perception creates all of your reality, but your reality is different from someone else's reality. There is no official reality that is collectively created and that all of you tap into at times, or that all of you participate with – no. You OVERLAP each other constantly; that's the part about interconnectedness. But each one of you is creating all of your reality individually through your perception, and that is being fueled by what you're paying attention to.
Therefore, as an example, because each one of you is creating your own reality through your perception, you don't create the entirety of your world inclusively. As an example: Because of attention, many, many, many individuals can be creating an overlapping, interconnected reality in which they are participating in a war, and many other individuals may be participating in overlapping and interconnectedness with that creation. Even if they're not participating in it directly, they're indirectly participating with it by paying attention and knowing about it. But then there are people that don't know about it because they're not paying attention, and therefore, that war doesn't exist in their reality; literally, it doesn't exist in their reality. They're creating a reality in which that doesn't exist; it's not happening. And the reason it's not happening is because they're not paying attention to it, and therefore they're not participating.
You have to be participating in something to be actually creating it. In that, you might ask, “But what about something that I've never seen before? I've never been to this house before; therefore, how am I creating the same house as the people that live in the house, even though I've never been to this house before?” That's part of the interconnectedness. You're constantly giving each other information, but it's about what you choose to be participating with. You could have lived the rest of your life and never engaged this house and you would not have this house in your reality. You would have no visual of it, you would not know what it looks like, and it wouldn't exist in your reality because you're not participating with it. But you chose to change that, and you chose to physically come here to this physical place and engage this physical house with the individuals that reside in this physical house, and therefore, your perception of this house is similar. It's not precisely the same as theirs, but it's similar, and it's similar enough that most of what the other individuals have created in this house you will have created also, because that's what you're paying attention to and it's what you're participating with.
But the first element is attention. Because if you're not paying attention, you won't be participating.
Now; also, another factor in that, in relation to perception, is importance. As humans, as people, you don't pay attention to what isn't important to you. Now, there are many varying degrees of importance, but if something isn't important to you, you're not going to pay attention to it, no matter how much you're reminded of it.
This is the reason that our second half of our conversation yesterday was important about complements. Because if you are attempting to engage a relationship with someone and you're not complements with them, there is friction; and things that you think of as being small begin to become more and more and more important, and therefore more and more and more irritating and creating resentfulness. And in that, this is the example that I've offered many times to people about taking off your shoes, that if you are an individual that it's important to you for people to remove their shoes when they enter your home, you're not going to be complements or compatible with an individual that never pays attention to taking off their shoes or removing their shoes when they enter the home. And that very small action becomes something very significant in your perception, because one individual makes it important.
And it doesn't matter how much you love the other individual, it doesn't matter how much you engage with each other, if it's not important to the other individual, they're not going to pay attention and they're going to forget. It's not that they don't care about the other person; it's that this is a detail that they don't pay attention to, and it's not important to them. And if it's not important to them, they're going to continue to not pay attention to it. No matter how much they care about the other individual and want to please them, it's automatic; you don't pay attention to what isn't important.
This is also the reason that I have expressed to individuals very simply, if you want to change something in your perception – because your perception creates everything – therefore, if there's something in your reality, there's something in your life that's bothersome to you and you want to change it, make it not important. Because the more you make it not important, the more you stop paying attention to it. The more you stop paying attention to it, the more it disappears out of your reality, literally – LITERALLY. I would say, so much literally that if you had a bush in your yard that irritated you every time you look at it, and you made that less and less and less important, you would pay less and less attention to it, and that bush would begin to fade away and disappear from your actual physical reality and eventually, you would walk outside and you wouldn't even remember that the bush had ever been there – it wouldn't be there anymore.
Physical manifestations change and can either disappear or appear in relation to perception.
PETER: The science to incorporate perception into their theories – I mean, the current theories of the small, they're tested all through smashing beams and particles against each other with higher and higher energies, et cetera – they're going to have to go a totally different approach and path?
ELIAS: They keep it moving in the direction of smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, because they think that that's what makes something disappear, or appear, is the smaller you move, you're moving to the core.
PETER: It reductionist.
ELIAS: Yes.
PETER: Reductionist philosophy.
ELIAS: Yes. But that's not it at all. That's simply another expression of reality. It's simply another expression of perception. It doesn't matter if it's a microparticle or an enormous asteroid. It doesn't matter how much mass something holds. There's no more energy fueling an asteroid or a planet or a sun; there’s no more energy fueling all of that than a particle. It's all the same. It's all about perception. It's all about that tremendous power of that mechanism, which can create a sun and a particle at the same time with the same amount of energy.
PETER: Are there people within the scientific regime who are putting forth things that are going to lead us to…?
ELIAS: Yes. There are people that are beginning to look at that and are beginning to realize that the direction that science has been moving in – because they are constantly attempting to quantify everything – that is what has influenced them, but not necessarily to fruition, because quantifying is simply measuring. And in that, they want to measure everything. Not everything is measurable. If you simply think about very simple terms of attention, and how much attention you are giving to something versus how little attention you're giving to something, that's not always quantifiable. It's not always measurable, because you may be so accustomed to paying attention to something that you don't have to objectively think about it, or you don't have to objectively be aware of it anymore. That's the reason that I have expressed many times, it's a matter of you create what you pay attention to and what you concentrate on. Because what you concentrate on isn't always what you're paying attention to; it's what you've already paid so much attention to that you don't HAVE to pay attention to it anymore; it's automatic. It's a concen—
PETER: [Inaudible]
ELIAS: It's a concentration at that point. And in that, that can be very difficult to measure – you’re engaging with people. Science can't even measure everything that happens in your brains yet, and you only use a tenth of your brain (chuckles) at this point. All the rest of it is usable matter, but you're simply not using it yet – but you're using much more of it than you did thousands of years ago.
[The timer for the end of the session rings]
Therefore, in that, science isn't even actually, genuinely, absolutely certain of what your brain does, or what happened in your body consciousness when something happens such as a mild stroke, or an allergy. They guess. They generate educated guesses. They're guessing at particles and wave theories. That's the reason that all of these are theories, because they can't necessarily prove them, in your terms, making them definite – I won't say absolute, but something that's definite.
In that, this is the reason that they have so much difficulty in solidifying everything and why they move in the direction of guessing, because they're leaving out the key factor of everything. Perception is the key to everything in physical reality. But then they move in the direction of including consciousness, and that also, in your terminology, “throws them off,” because in nonphysical expressions of consciousness there is no perception. Because it isn't necessary, because it's only necessary in relation to physical manifestations. It's the projector that creates physical manifestations.
There is no physical manifestation in nonphysical consciousness; therefore, perception is something that doesn't exist – just as objective awareness doesn't exist in nonphysical, because it's only associated with physical reality.
PETER: Okay. That's a whole other topic, whether we in objective focus can really appreciate what you mean when you say that consciousness has awareness but not... (laughs)
ELIAS: Yes, but isn't a thing.
PETER: Yeah, but isn’t a thing. Anyway, well, the buzzer’s gone off, so we’d better allow Mary to have a rest. I thank you very much for all your time.
ELIAS: You are exceptionally welcome. And I express tremendous encouragement to both of you, and great supportiveness as always. In exceptional love and dear friendship, au revoir.
PETER: Au revoir. Thanks very much, Elias.
Copyright 2022 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.