Live your best possible life. How good can it get?

Posts tagged ‘quantum physics’

Cynthia Sue Larson Interviews Stanley Krippner


Dr. Stanley Krippner with Cynthia Sue Larson

I recently had the pleasure to chat with Dr. Stanley Krippner about quantum logic, consciousness, and dreams. Dr. Krippner is a professor of psychology at Saybrook University, and author, editor, and co-author of numerous books including:  “The Voice of Rolling Thunder,” “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” and many others.

I first met Stanley Krippner about ten years ago at the International Conference on the Study of Shamanism and Alternative Modes of Healing, where we’ve both given presentations. I’ve long been deeply impressed with the insights Stanley shares, such as I reported in the September 2005 issue of RealityShifters, in which I mentioned some fascinating aspects of his work:

 Stanley Krippner presented a thought-provoking paper at this year’s shamanism conference that summarized research findings between the differences in the dreams of schizophrenics and non-schizophrenics. Imagery in schizophrenic dreams is quite different than imagery in shamanic dreams and visions; schizophrenic dreams are more apathetic, banal, and low-energy with few clear settings or distinct outcomes. I am intrigued to note that one of the biggest differences between shamanic and schizophrenic dreams appears to be that of lucidity… that what the shaman knows for sure is something the schizophrenic has not noticed. The shaman maintains a constant sense of awareness and focus that brings greater meaning to peoples’ lives.


CYNTHIA: Thanks so much for meeting to talk with me today! I’d love to know your thoughts about the connection between quantum physics, consciousness, and dreams.

STANLEY: Montague Ullman was doing just what you’re telling me—applying quantum physics to dreaming. Especially to psychic dreaming. And he was working on that before he died. I’ve not seen the manuscript of his incomplete book, but you can get some information from an interview he did with Mark Schroll.

CYNTHIA:  Wonderful!

STANLEY: Now in the sense that I see it, it’s especially true of precognitive dreams—dreams about the future, because there will be several possible futures that the dreamer could dream about. And the psychic dreamer knows which one to dream about, so this is where the observational effect comes in. And this is why some people are able to do this and some people aren’t. Some people have the talent to unconsciously select the possible future that indeed comes true. And I wrote an article about the probable future years ago, before I knew anything about quantum physics. But in that article, I pointed out how so many dreams about the future are pliable. In other words, once the dreamer knows about what might takes place, the dreamer can make a change to prevent something disastrous from happening.

CYNTHIA: So you’re saying this happens frequently.

STANLEY: This happens frequently, yes. There’s been a study on this, years ago, by Louisa Rhine. If I remember the statistics, whenever there was a portending disaster, the dreamer was able to prevent the disaster in about three out of four occasions, which was a lot. And there was another evidence indicating that the disaster might happen, to know that this was something that was not just being made up.

CYNTHIA: Right. That would be the challenging thing, to know if it didn’t happen, would it have happened, of course.

STANLEY: One case I do remember was a woman who had a dream about a light fixture falling on her baby’s crib, killing the baby at exactly two o’clock in the morning. So she woke up and took the baby into the bed with her and husband. He was very dismissive, saying, “Oh, it’s just a dream. You were worried—you’re concerned.” But later that night, at two o’clock in the morning, this light fixture did fall into the baby’s crib.

CYNTHIA: Wow. And that’s something they would hear, and it would wake them up if they were asleep.

STANLEY: Yes, if they were telling the truth about this account, there you have an example of where the likely future had changed by human volition. 


STANLEY: Now, your feeling that dreams show us the real nature of reality is something that’s shared by many indigenous groups around the world.

CYNTHIA: Yes. What I’m suspecting is that’s the best way to look at the quantum paradigm that we’re trying to understand. I think that one of the best ways to look at it is as if everything really is a dream, basically. As you know, we can’t even agree on what consciousness is to begin with. But I’m expecting that we’re making progress.

STANLEY: Consciousness is anything you define it as. I tell people instead of waiting, just take any definition that you like, and use that, and run with it! So I don’t think the issue is that we don’t know what consciousness is. The issue is we don’t have a consensus on what consciousness is. Far from it.

CYNTHIA: We recognize it when we see it, but we don’t know how to explain it or describe it fully, so that everyone agrees.

STANLEY: That’s the so-called “hard problem,” which many people don’t think exists.

CYNTHIA: How about yourself?

B00RY85CQI.imitationgameSTANLEY: Oh, yes! I’m working with a team of people who are interested in doing a documentary on the hard problem. Are you familiar with the new movie, The Imitation Game?


STANLEY: Did you know that the protagonist had written about telepathy?

CYNTHIA: No. Wow! In real life?

STANLEY: In real life. It was Henry Stapp who picked up on that essay, and carried it a step further, in a classic article which came out in about 1972. So you might ask Henry for the article that builds on Turing’s notion of telepathy. It came out in a journal called Mind, as I recall. I have a copy of it. And it’s I think still very timely. Henry was so far ahead of his time.

CYNTHIA: Wow! So Henry Stapp wrote an article and published it…

STANLEY: Yes, based on Turing’s original article. Turing was saying, well, if telepathy exists, then it would proceed this way and that way. And so then what Henry did was to take that and show, yes, this is how it would proceed. And he was able to fill in the gap that Turing had no way of knowing about.

CYNTHIA: That’s quite useful! I appreciate the way that Henry Stapp looks at the Von Neumann cut, focusing attention on finding the place where consciousness occurs. I think of it as levels of consciousness, actually. So I agree with that. But at the same time, I’m also quite interested in the multiverse concepts and ideas, because they match the feeling of how it feels when you jump into another world.

STANLEY: They do, yes.

CYNTHIA: And you can jump in, and jump out. You can see things go back and forth, which is quite interesting to me. That’s why I want to talk to people who have experienced them, rather than people who say that you can’t do it. I’d rather trade notes with other people who’ve been there, on the SS Quantum Beagle, as we observe things from the deck, and share our notes. And then when it comes to levels of consciousness, I find that’s where some of the most interesting phenomena occurs, when you meditate a lot. I do martial arts, and I meditate a lot.

STANLEY: Keep doing both!

CYNTHIA: I think it helps. When you do martial arts, you’re honing your entire system and your ability to focus attention. I can move my consciousness and sort of expand it out. Like when I first met Eva Herr at the Portland airport and without any tips from her walked away from her to pick up her unmarked suitcase that she had not told me anything about, I was what you might call entangled with or coherent with the entire system of me and Eva Herr—and it felt very much like a dream. What it felt like to me was, “Now it’s time to go–wave at Eva. Now go this way. Now walk that way. Pick up that bag that is just now dropping onto the baggage claim carousel at the same moment you arrive. Now look at Eva and gesture to this bag to make sure it is hers.” It was her bag, and her jaw just about hit the floor, as she’d been on her cell phone that whole time, and had not given me any information about her luggage, nor was it tagged. It just felt like I was ‘in the zone’–like what athletes experience. So it wasn’t so much precognition so much as, “Here we go! This is what we’re doing.” I think a lot of people do this, and they don’t know that they’re doing it. It goes unrecognized quite a lot. And when we expand our consciousness, then you can have an effect on things like the weather, I believe. On a lot of things. A lot more than people recognize, even.

1591431336.rollingthunderSTANLEY: Two years ago I came out with the book about Rolling Thunder, the native American medicine man. I did it with his grandson, who’s also interested in quantum physics, and there are several documented instances where Rolling Thunder seemed to have an effect on the weather.

CYNTHIA: Yes, exactly! That sounds like a great book! I’ve also experienced other changes. Just on the flight to New York, we hit turbulence. The plane was just “bah-duh-duh-duh-duh” So I spread my consciousness to the plane, and the weather, and everything became all smooth. Smooth! Then my friend next to me started talking to me, and I turned and I looked at her, and it went back to “bah-duh-duh-duh-duh,” so I said, “Excuse me—I need to meditate.”

STANLEY: Really! I’m going to have to try that when I’m on a turbulent flight.

CYNTHIA: I think we often think we are the bodies that we’re in; we’re not the bodies that we’re in.

STANLEY: This is another native American concept—the concept of the “long body.” The body does not end with our skin—it extends into time, into space, and into other people.


STANLEY: William Roll wrote a whole series of articles about the long body.

CYNTHIA: That’s what I would call levels of consciousness; you can expand it, you can bring it in, you can direct it.

STANLEY: Now getting back to dreams, have you read Fred Alan Wolf’s book about dreams?

CYNTHIA: Yes, it’s quite excellent.

STANLEY: Yes, I like his book about “The Dreaming Universe,” very much.

CYNTHIA: It’s one of my favorites!

STANLEY: I have an article coming out in a European newsletter, “Transpersonal Transformative Experiences,” and I have a whole series of examples past and present TTEs.

CYNTHIA: That sounds excellent.

STANLEY: There are two types of Transpersonal Transformative Experiences. One is the spiritual, and one is the secular. In both of them, they’re transpersonal, because the person goes beyond their usual self identity. And in spiritual experiences, it’s (vertical). They go up to the upper world, and go down to the lower world, and they encounter entities or beings or energies or forces that are not part of their customary world or identity. Whereas in the secular experience, that’s horizontal. People go to Nature. They become involved with other people in a group movement. And again, they transcend their ordinary identity in sort of a group consciousness or a version of their consciousness with Nature, and that’s all observable entities and observable objects, which is why it’s horizontal. But either one can transform a person.

CYNTHIA: Yes, they can.

STANLEY: I’m going to do another version of that on the east coast. I just signed the agreement today, for the Academy of Spirituality and Consciousness Research. You should look at their website—very interesting group. And that’s happening right after the International Association for the Study of Dreams.

CYNTHIA: I’d love to ask you one last question: What would be the one thing that you would like people to be aware of with regard to everything that you’ve done, and all of your work?

STANLEY: Interconnectedness. If people see how we’re all interconnected and connected with Nature, we wouldn’t have an environmental crisis, we wouldn’t have two dozen wars all over the world. We’d honor the rest of Nature and the rest of humanity, because we’d know that those are parts of ourselves. So that’s an easy question.

CYNTHIA: Getting to the place of how we can do that is the hard problem.

STANLEY: What you’re doing, with books like yours, helps raise peoples’ consciousness. And you don’t have to have everybody agreeing with this. A small group of people who want to make change is enough to get the ball rolling.

CYNTHIA: That’s right.

STANLEY: Have you heard of Stephen Schwartz?

CYNTHIA:  Stephen Schwartz—that sounds very familiar.

STANLEY: He has written several books. He has a new book coming out, “Eight Rules for Changing the World.” He gives many examples of how small groups of people in very peaceful ways can make major changes in the world, or parts of it, simply by following these eight rules.


STANLEY: His book isn’t out yet, but it will be available on

CYNTHIA: OK. Thank you so very much!


Dr. Stanley Krippner

Cynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, and BBC. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:


Cynthia Sue Larson Interviews Stuart Hameroff

Cynthia Sue Larson with Dr. Stuart Hameroff

I talked with Stuart Hameroff this month about his ideas about quantum physics and consciousness. Dr Hameroff is a clinical anesthesiologist and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, and lead organizer of the Toward a Science of Consciousness conferences that began in Tucson, Arizona in 1994.

Stuart Hameroff’s research involves a theory of consciousness developed over the past 20 years with British physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (‘Orch OR’) theory suggests that consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in protein polymers called microtubules inside the brain’s neurons.  For a review, along with critical commentaries and replies, see:

Hameroff and Penrose suggest these vibrations compute, collapse, interfere and resonate, regulating neuronal processes and connecting to the fundamental level of the universe, providing moments of conscious experience and choice.


3540238905.emergphysconsciousnessCYNTHIA: Some scientists point out that the brain is basically dissipative, essentially, that it’s not isolated. Would you agree with that?

STUARTI think that the brain is a little bit more clever, that there are alternating phases of isolated/quantum and dissipative/classical processing. Quantum and classical, quantum and classical, quantum and classical. The classical is dissipative and interacts with the environment, bringing information in and letting information out, exerting causal efficacy in the world. But classical phases alternate with quantum phases at EEG frequencies, for example, at 40 Hz. Or maybe even faster, at megahertz. So for 40 Hz, that would imply every twenty-five milliseconds there is a cycle of quantum processing followed by collapse, a classical result that interacts with the outside world. In this classical phase information comes in and that’s when it’s dissipative, and then the cycle repeats. So you have a quantum phase that’s isolated, then an open phase that’s dissipative and brings information in, and then another quantum phase, so on in alternating phases. I think consciousness consists of sequences of these alternating phases, the end of each quantum phase a discrete event. Consciousness is a sequence of discrete events, not a continuum. A movie appears continuous to us, but it’s actually a sequence of frames; I think consciousness is like that, and these frames alternate, quantum and classical.

CYNTHIAI love your theory, which is about the best one I’ve seen for bringing that together. When we look in the brain, would you say we see evidence of this quantum logic happening? You might say that we do?

STUART: As far as quantum logic, specifically, I think that you see that in dreams. I think dreams are quantum information without collapse—you stay in the quantum phase, without the dissipative phase. If there’s a loud noise, you wake up, so you’re shielded, isolated. Except for sleepwalkers, or something like that.

CYNTHIA: And lucid dreaming is interesting.

STUART: Lucid dreaming, exactly.

CYNTHIA: In that case, maybe, would there be alternation?

STUART: Lucid dreaming, I have to think about that. Probably there’s some collapse, but maybe infrequent, or not total, or something like that. I’m not sure. That’s certainly an exception to the rule. Sleepwalking and lucid dreaming are special cases.  Matte Blanco described the logic of dreams which is very similar to quantum logic.

CYNTHIA: You can find the extremes there, but they come together.

STUART: Well the big issue in quantum logic is noncommutativity. In regular logic, A times B equals B times A, but in quantum logic, A times B is not equal to B times A. Paradox reigns. Opposites co-exist.


STUART: Irreversible steps are one of the keys.

CYNTHIA: In addition to the irreversible steps, some people have noticed that quantum logic is a little bit like four-fold logic—so-called “Asian logic”—because it does have True, False, True-and-False, and Not-True-Not-False.

STUART: Yeah, superposition, quantum superposition. Or as Stuart Kaufman talks about, Aristotle’s ‘excluded middle’ actually occurs in quantum logic.

CYNTHIA: Would you say that quantum logic feels like an equal partner to classical logic, or do you feel it’s more of the primarily logic that is constantly there? This gets to what you were noticing about the brain.

STUART: I think the logic of the quantum world underlies the classical world—but then when collapse occurs—you get the classical world. I believe in collapse, but quantum field theorists don’t necessarily agree with collapse. And then you have Henry Stapp’s view, that collapse is caused by the Cosmic Mind. I don’t think that solves the problem. That puts consciousness out there, kind of outside of science, so it’s really a spiritual, religious type of approach. But I think you can get spirituality out of collapse, with non-locality and Platonic values, which is what Penrose brought in.

CYNTHIA: I love the way you bring up protoconsciousness, the Planck scale, and the way consciousness might exist in that sort of decoherent state, but at the same time, you do look to consciousness to bring about collapse.

STUART: Roger Penrose essentially replaced decoherence with self collapse, what he called ‘objective reduction’. Decoherence is kind of an ill-defined thing anyway. Nobody can really say exactly what it is. Plus it doesn’t really get rid of the quantum superposition—just buries it in noise. So Roger came up with the idea that there is this objective threshold for reduction, related to the uncertainty principle, so every superposition will reach this threshold, and have a self collapse. Now normally, that occurs in a very charged, polar environment, like in this table, or in the air, or liquids. So the charge will entangle with another charge, the simple equation is: E = h/t, where E is the amount of superposition, h is Planck’s constant, and t is the time at which self collapse occurs by OR. So the larger the E, the faster the t. Roger then also said that when OR happens, there is a moment of subjective experience.


STUART: Now normally, if that happens in a polar environment, then it’s random, and it’s going to happen very quickly, but randomly, so the moment of conscious experience won’t have any cognition. That’s what we call protoconscious moments, random, non-cognitive and inconsequential—but still experience. There’s consciousness everywhere, but it doesn’t hang together and do anything meaningful.

CYNTHIA: That could explain, perhaps, why plants can photosynthesize using that quantum random walk, because on some level, they’ve got protoconsciousness.

STUART: Yeah, photosynthesis is a really interesting thing. I was talking about this yesterday with these guys down at Stanford. Does that collapse? That’s a good question. The problem is that, by e=h/t, if it’s just electrons, electrons have very little mass, so e is going to be very, very small. So it will take a lot of electrons to reach collapse.


STUART: Everything has proto-conscious moments. But in the brain, and specifically due to structures called microtubules inside neurons, the random entanglements are avoided during quantum isolation phases, and the quantum states are organized, or ‘orchestrated’ by memory, sensory inputs and resonances, and cognitive ‘orchestrated’ OR conscious moments occur. But plants have photosynthesis which uses electron quantum coherence but probably don’t have orchestrated OR and meaningful consciousness. The problem is that by E=h/t, electrons comprising E have very little mass, so E is going to be very, very small, and t very, very long. So plants might have meaningful conscious moments but very rarely.


STUART: But the quantum movements of electron excitations in plant proteins which enables highly efficient conversion to food is similar to what happens in microtubule proteins. You have these aromatic rings, kind of like benzene and phenyl rings, which have excitons and dipole states. These are the same molecules that are in psychedelics, dopamine and psychoactive drugs and neurotransmitters. And that type of environment is non-polar, so there’s no charge. There are induced dipoles, but no net charge. So the quantum states there don’t automatically and quickly entangle with the environment and collapse. They can persist and couple with other quantum states to interact cognitively and process information. Or in the case of photosynthesis, transfer energy.

CYNTHIA: This coupling with other quantum states is really interesting, and brings me to the core of something I’ve been looking at, which is levels of consciousness. When we ask this big question, “Who are we?” and “Who is the observer?” we tend to have a human bias, of course, because this is how we see the world. But obviously, people who meditate are able to focus very closely in on one particular system within themselves, such as their breathing, their heart rate, these kind of things. So it’s something that we have the ability—at least yogi masters do—through meditation and awareness of themselves—to change that kind of level of consciousness. This to me is the key.

STUART: Yes, levels of consciousness. If you go back to E=h/t, these protoconscious events are happening in the table, in the air, in the coffee cup all the time. It’s basically the same as decoherence, except there is this little snippet of protoconscious experience that’s happening everywhere. So that seems bizarre and crazy, but on the other hand you have people—panpsychists—now saying that everything’s conscious, without any clue as to what actually that might mean. But then, if you get into a non-polar environment, you avoid the random entanglements, and have cognition and meaningful consciousness. In other words, the quantum states are orchestrated. It’s like the difference between the sounds and tones of an orchestra warming up, and the orchestra playing a symphony.

CYNTHIA: Exactly.

B00M25DDQE.lucySTUART: So the orchestra warming up with the various isolated tones and notes is like protoconscious moments here and there. And then they start playing Beethoven, because it’s all orchestrated, and that’s music. It’s a very good analogy, the musical analogy, except with music you need a listener, whereas here, the vibrations are self-aware. So when you start to orchestrate the objective reduction events, you get cognition and consciousness. And then it’s a matter of the intensity of the levels. So for example, assuming it’s orchestrated, and you have meaningful consciousness, then as “E” becomes larger, “t” becomes shorter, and you get more intense conscious experience, like music changing to a higher octave. As E is larger, you use more of the brain. Did you see that movie, “Lucy”?


STUART: It’s about how we use some percentage of the brain, and Lucy was using more and more percentage of her brain. And how they were saying she was doing it wasn’t right.

CYNTHIA: It was fanciful.

STUART: Nobody really knows. Based on available technology they tell us we only use a small fraction of our brain. Well, bullshit! How do you know how much of our brain we use? We may use a lot of it for stuff that’s not conscious, or that is conscious and cant be measured, like quantum effects in microtubules. But just for consciousness, I think if you’re meditating or if you’re in an altered state or something like that, that means you’re using more and more of your brain that is involved. Therefore, “E” becomes greater and “t” is faster, so you get faster, more frequent, conscious events. You go to a deeper level which is a higher plane. It’s been shown that meditators have  higher frequency gamma synchrony, for example, but it could go even faster, like to megahertz, for example. So we could be having ten million of these events per second. But then you’d say, “Wait a second. For EEG, our cognition is much, much slower.” What Roger and I proposed in our last paper is that these faster events interfere and give beats, just like in music, when you have beat frequencies. And the beat frequencies are what we see—the EEG. The beat frequency that we see is cognitive windows in the range of milliseconds. But they are actually deriving from faster vibrations, like in megahertz, which is where the microtubules are vibrating. So there’s a spectrum of terahertz, gigahertz, megahertz, kilohertz, and then hertz. And the EEG is basically hertz. So what we see as EEG I think of as beat frequencies of faster vibrations at a deeper level. EEG is the slower, large scale tip of an iceberg of deeper, faster vibrations. So if you’re meditating, or you go in an altered state, you’re going into that faster, more intense domain. So it will include more conscious moments per second, and they are more intense. So that’s what I think an altered state is, a deeper level, higher frequency level of consciousness—it’s the frequency at which you’re having orchestrated conscious events, more deeply into spacetime geometry. Very intense experiences may be entirely in spacetime geometry, and could exist independent of the brain, at least temporarily, remaining entangled. So this could explain out-of-body experiences. As the Beatles said – ‘The deeper you go, the higher you fly….”


Dr. Stuart Hameroff


Center for Consciousness Studies


Consciousness in the Universe: A Review of the ‘Orch OR’ Theory

by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose





Cynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, and BBC. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:


Cynthia Sue Larson Interviews Yasunori Nomura

Yasunori Nomura with Cynthia Sue Larson

Yasunori Nomura with Cynthia Sue Larson

I’ve been following Professor Yasunori Nomura‘s work this past year with tremendous interest, since he was one of the first theoretical physicists to publish a paper on the topic of the many worlds of quantum mechanics being one and the same as the eternally inflating multiverse. This perspective is one I consider to be extremely promising, both for its elegance and also for its ability to explain much that other theories cannot so easily address.

I was thrilled when attending a screening of the recent documentary film, “Particle Fever,” about the hunt for the Higgs boson to see Yasunori’s name up on the podium. I’d received an invitation to attend this UC Berkeley event through the Physics Department where I’d studied and received my degree many years ago. Dr. Yasunori Nomura was one of the panelists who talked about what we’re learning from the hunt for the Higgs boson after the show, along with Lawrence Hall, Marjorie Shapiro, Walter Murch, Mark Levinson, Petr Horava, Beate Heinemann, and Surjeet Rajendran. Dr. Nomura is a Professor at UC Berkeley at the Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics, where his work is primarily focused on particle physics and cosmology.


Panelists at “Particle Fever” screening at UC Berkeley, September 12, 2014


CYNTHIA: Thank you so very much for taking time from your busy schedule to answer a few questions! I also want to thank you for writing such a clear and persuasive paper in the Journal of High Energy Physics, “Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe.” You’ve also developed a new theoretical framework to describe dynamics of quantum gravity in low energy regimes, preserving locality. What’s so wonderfully exciting about bringing these ideas together is that you are presenting us with a view of general relativistic global spacetime being an emerging classical concept that arises from a special relativistic, quantum mechanical description of quantum gravity. When these concepts are applied to the idea of the multiverse, we then have a multiverse with no beginning and no end, but rather time that emerges locally in branches. Is this a fairly good summary of your most current perspective? And in what new directions is your work going next?

YASUNORI: Yes, that is a good summary of my perspective. Our world is quantum mechanical. Quantum mechanics governs how nature works at the deepest level, not just in small subatomic scales but also at the largest scale of the eternally inflating multiverse. At the same time, quantum mechanics is a “weird theory” which predicts many counter-intuitive phenomena, and from which the “normal world” we perceive emerges only in a certain limit. This includes concepts such as space and time. Furthermore, quantum mechanics is an intrinsically probabilistic theory—every prediction you make is probabilistic. My current effort focuses on developing a deeper understanding of these issues. What is the detailed microscopic mechanism underlying the emergence of spacetime? What does the probability really mean? How does understanding of these issues help revealing the so-far elusive quantum theory of gravity?

CYNTHIA: I love the way you describe our world as being quantum mechanical at the deepest level! This conceptualization has not been popularly embraced, perhaps due to the counter-intuitive “weirdness” of quantum mechanics. You make excellent points about quantum mechanics being intrinsically probabilistic, and I appreciate your emphasis on the importance of better understanding what probability really means. In the introduction of your 2011 paper, “Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime Locality, and Gravity,” you point out that, “Quantum mechanics introduced the concept of probability to physics at the fundamental level. This has led to the issue of the quantum-to-classical transition, in particular the measurement problem.”  What is needed for us to better understand probability in a quantum world?

YASUNORI: What the probability in quantum mechanics really means is a deep question, with which people have been struggling for a century. At the most naive level, it means that when we prepare an ensemble of a large number of systems all of which are in an identical state, then the records of performing physical measurements on these systems are distributed according to what quantum mechanics predicts. Does this mean that we simply do not know enough details of the systems, and if we do, then we can predict the outcome of measuring each member of the ensemble with certainty? People certainly wondered this possibility in early days in developing quantum mechanics, but we are now almost certain that this is not the case. In quantum mechanical world, the outcome of a measurement is intrinsically probabilistic—the probabilistic nature is not a manifestation of our incomplete knowledge of the system. A question then arises when we ask what happens if we make a “single” measurement on “a” system in our universe. According to quantum mechanics, the result is “probabilistic,” but what does that really mean? Where is the ensemble? Are there many universes which are “distributed” according to the prediction of quantum mechanics? This is where the necessity of considering many universes—or multiverse—comes in. We need to consider cosmology in a deepest sense to really address this problem.

CYNTHIA: This suggests there is a deeper interconnectedness that goes beyond any “single” measurement on “a” system that is occurring everywhere–and not just in the realm of quantum particles, because we cannot assume that any given experiment is closed off from its surrounding environment. We definitely require an understanding of probabilities beyond mere statistical frequencies, since we can’t run experiments on multiple versions of the universe! What are your thoughts about the value of the Bayesian interpretation of probability for quantum cosmology–the idea that before we start measuring probabilities, we must set initial assumptions about the probabilities?

YASUNORI: Yes, the issue is certainly relevant beyond the realm of quantum particles at small scales. Quantum effects are there even at large distances—they are simply hard to recognize for an observer like us living in “a branch” of a complete quantum state. We still do not know exactly what form the physical law that allows us to address this issue will take, but I can certainly imagine that some sort of Bayesian ways of thinking may play an important, and perhaps even crucial, role in formulating such a law. In fact, there are already several hints to move forward, based on consistency of quantum cosmology. (Another obvious clue is that the new rule must reduce to the standard Born rule in situations in which an ensemble is explicitly available to an observer.) Perhaps, explorations of this issue may lead to a new theory beyond quantum mechanics, not just reinterpretation (or reformulation) of the standard quantum mechanics.

CYNTHIA: Quantum cosmology is an especially exciting field right now, as it is becoming clear that multiverse theories can be modeled using computer simulations that can be compared to cosmic background radiation. When you envision a new theory beyond our current conceptualization of quantum mechanics, what ideas do you find most interesting now?

YASUNORI: Yes, quantum cosmology is an especially exciting field right now because of observational and theoretical evidence pointing to the multiverse, gathered in the last decade or two. We are, however, not at a stage in which we can simulate the multiverse as we do for cosmic background radiation. The problems we are struggling are still conceptual: what is the probability in the cosmological context, etc. I am, however, optimistic about near future progress. One idea which I think promising, and which I have been pursuing, is that “time” we perceive emerges only locally in relevant branches (e.g. in our own universe) in the static multiverse state. This would solve many conceptual issues such as what is the beginning or end of the multiverse.

CYNTHIA: Considering time to be more of a variable than a constant in the multiverse is fascinating and mind-bending. We now have measurements from our most accurate strontium atomic clocks showing that time elapses more slowly at lower altitudes, influenced by gravity, so a clock positioned just a few centimeters higher will read a different time. NIST’s chief timekeeper, Tom O’Brian, recently stated in an NPR interview that, “My own personal opinion is that time is a human construct.” Could you describe a little bit more about how might we envision time as being something we perceive locally in relevant branches of the multiverse–is there some way to visualize such a thing?

YASUNORI: What we call time is nothing more than (a very special form of) correlations between physical objects. Consider throwing a baseball. It is usually stated that the baseball then moves (relative to the earth) as “time passes.” What is really happening, however, is that the relative location between the baseball and the earth is correlated with configurations of other physical systems, e.g. the location of the hands of a clock, relative configurations of the Sun, Earth, and Moon (although their changes are minuscule in the timescale of the motion of the baseball), configurations of synapses in your brain, etc. To describe all these correlations, one may introduce some parameter “t” and write the configurations of the systems as functions of this “spurious” parameter t as we describe a curve in a two-dimensional plane using a parametric representation: (x(t), y(t)). This parameter t is precisely what we call time—it does not really “exist” as a physical object!

A real question then is why there exists such a special form of correlations between configurations of various physical systems, more specifically correlations that are described in a simple manner using a single spurious parameter t. This is what really must be explained, which my static quantum multiverse proposal is trying to address. Note that these special corrections (i.e. time) need not exist in all the branches of the multiverse state. We only know experimentally that they exist in the branches corresponding to our universe.

CYNTHIA: You point out that our conceptualization of infinitely large space that we associate with eternal inflation is really just an illusion, and a more accurate way to describe everything is that we exist within an intrinsically probabilistic multiverse. The vastness of eternally inflating space can thus be found in probability–in which an initial state evolves into a superposition of states, with branches occurring whenever bubble universes burst forth. In your “Static Quantum Multiverse” 2012 paper, you explain how the multiverse need not evolve in order to be consistent with an arrow of time–which presents a completely different picture of cosmology than the currently popular sense of infinitely large space. Within this static quantum multiverse, can you envision there being a place for subjective observation with its associated sense of past, present and future—so important to people, as Bernard d’Espagnat’s observes, “Time is at the heart of all that is important to human beings.” For example, when imagining ourselves throwing a baseball, is there anything we can identify as being ‘now’–the present moment?

YASUNORI: You correctly summarize that the vastness of eternally inflating space can be found in probability space. In a sense, the “Static Quantum Multiverse” proposal simply says that the vastness of time should also be found in the probability space. In this picture, the (static) multiverse state contains many “observers,” e.g. myself, at “different times,” each of whom has his/her own sense of past, present and future. In your example, each of these “observers” (which we usually describe as a single observer in different moments) has his/her own sense of now, with the baseball located in the place determined mostly by the Newtonian mechanics. I can’t affirm that the absence of the absolute notion of ‘now’ is not a problem, but I think it is not.

CYNTHIA: I appreciate how your static quantum multiverse model’s inclusion of probability space and time provides such an elegant view of the cosmos while allowing for free will and unique individual experience. Thank you for sharing some of your fascinating ideas and observations about quantum cosmology, time and space! In addition to reading your many publications–which number 111 to date, according to ResearchGate–how best can people follow your work and what you are doing?

YASUNORI: It is my pleasure. ResearchGate is one option. Another possibility is to use an author search in INSPIRE, the High Energy Physics information system built by CERN, DESY, Fermilab and SLAC: I will also be updating my homepage:

Cynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps, Reality Shifts, Aura Advantage, High Energy Money, and Karen Kimball and the Dream Weaver’s Web, and the Aura Healing Meditations CD. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and she discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, and BBC. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:

Nelson Mandela Didn’t Die in Prison, and Why it Matters


“The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”   – Mark Twain

If you remember seeing media coverage of Nelson Mandela having died in prison in the 1980s, and you’re wondering why he’s just this month been reported dead again, you’re in good company. Mandela is one of the most commonly discussed celebrities who has been seen alive after having been reported dead. When we personally witness disparities between events we remember having happened and what reliable physical evidence suggests has occurred, we might at first feel a sense of dissonance. Fortunately, we need not stay confused, since noticing the differences between our memories and evidence in our current reality allows us to gain valuable direct experience of how malleable reality can truly be. Recent scientific discoveries suggest it’s quite likely that both this so-called “Mandela Effect,” also known as the “Alive Again” phenomena, are not new, as shamans and spiritual teachers from every continent and age of humankind have described for millennia.

The Mechanism Behind the Mandela Effect

We are fortunate to be alive at a time when scientists from several different branches of physics are converging on the idea that we live in a holographic multiverse… AND that everything including you and me have a truly quantum nature. When we put these two big ideas together, we see the mechanism by which we can understand and appreciate how things like intuition, synchronicity, the placebo effect, and spontaneous remission can transpire.

Illustration of Holographic Multiverse from "Quantum Jumps: An Extraordinary Science of Happiness and Prosperity"

Illustration of Holographic Multiverse from “Quantum Jumps: An Extraordinary Science of Happiness and Prosperity”

Evidence supporting the concept of many parallel universes being interconnected comes from UC Berkeley’s Raphael Bousso, whose view of reality has been gaining support ever since last year’s discovery of the Higgs boson. And there is further good news for those wondering, “Where are these other parallel universes?” Some of the first hard evidence of other universes was found just this year by theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Carnegie Mellon professor Richard Holman, through cosmic background radiation data collected by the European Space Agency’s Planck telescope, which indicates the presence of other external universes to our own at the very moment of the Big Bang.

What Happens in the Quantum Realm Doesn’t Stay in the Quantum Realm

In much the same way that some people prefer that “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” many physicists have hoped that the weirdness known to happen in the quantum realm would remain safely confined there. This appears to not be the case, as evidenced in recent ground-breaking laboratory experiments over the past few years. Increasing numbers of studies with macroscopic scale objects, such as diamonds, are consistently and repeatedly demonstrating such distinctly quantum behaviors as entanglement–which Albert Einstein once called, “spooky action at a distance.” 

Other behaviors previously presumed to reside exclusively within the quantum scale including: superposition of states, coherence, and teleportation are also being witnessed on the macroscopic scale. This is happening to the point that a growing consensus is beginning to form amongst physicists, such as those surveyed at a recent conference that you and I and everyone and everything around us exists in a superposition of states.

This means that in one possible reality, you have not made a decision that resulted in your catching a cold, but in another possible reality, you have. We can expect to occasionally experience quantum jumps from one possible reality to another, particularly when we are aware that such leaps are possible. These jumps from one reality to another can be a lot of fun, as some of the world’s quantum jumping experts can attest.

And who, might you ask, are the world’s quantum jumping experts? Such experts include most of the world’s top athletes, medical miracle experiencers, heroes, survivors of close brushes with death, experienced meditators, beneficiaries of the placebo effect, and people experienced with hypnosis and lucid dreaming have experienced leaps to better possible realities. These people often trust intuition, and benefit from a sense of there being a connectedness between themselves and everyone and everything else.

Evidence of Possible Futures & Pasts 

As the saying goes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” But how can we find evidence demonstrating that alternate histories occur, when typically the only “proof” we have that a change has occurred resides in our own memories? One way to collect such proof is to rapidly document peoples’ experiences immediately following highly memorable historic events like the Kennedy assassination, the Challenger space shuttle explosion, or Princess Diana’s death. Such flashbulb memories provide reference points by which the same people can later be asked about.

Researchers Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch at Emory University investigated flashbulb memories of students immediately following the Challenger space shuttle explosion by collecting handwritten student reactions immediately following the disaster. When they followed up two and a half years later with the very same students, Neisser and Harsch were startled to find that students’ accounts of where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news were different from what they’d initially described. One student said, “That’s my handwriting, but that’s not what happened.” 

Kindness Matters 

Discrepancies between memories also often appear amongst people who were all together for a particular event, but later remember what transpired very differently. Chances are pretty good that you’ve encountered disagreements with people you’d usually consider competent and aware… except for when they insist something happened some way you know for sure couldn’t be true.

If we didn’t live in a holographic multiverse in which we’re all venturing in various directions to experience a multitude of different possible futures and pasts, we wouldn’t find the tremendous divergence between peoples’ memories. As we enter the Quantum Age, it’s time that we stop calling such differences in memory “false recollections,” in favor of “alternate recollections,” indicating respect for the fact that each and every one of us exists in a superimposed state, with access to many possible alternate histories, presents, and futures.

And most importantly, it’s time we truly show respect for one another and our multitudes of alternate histories and recollections.


Do you remember Nelson Mandela having died before? Take the poll, and share your recollections with alternate histories in the comments below:

________________________Quantum Jumps

Further details, explanations, research, examples and references about the ideas presented in this article are provided in Quantum Jumps: An Extraordinary Science of Happiness and Prosperity.

Welcome to the Quantum Age

CynthiaWhile it’s true that we just left the Industrial Age behind a few short decades ago as we entered the Information Age, the times are again changing, as we are now arriving at the dawn of the Quantum Age.

Such a bold statement demands an explanation, I realize. Like most changes in eras of time throughout human history–from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age to the Iron Age to the Industrial Age and the Information Age–this one too is based on new ideas and technology. There is right now a race to build quantum computers, which is driving forward a staggering number of new discoveries in the realm of quantum physics on a weekly basis. These new Quantum Age computers are to our current classical Information Age computers as typewriters are to laptops… a technological leap forward in exponential orders of magnitude.This race to build the first working quantum computers is rocking our world to its very foundation, as quantum processes are being demonstrated at room temperatures on the macroscopic scale in repeatable laboratory conditions.

ENIACYou can better appreciate the origins of our current Information Age by taking a look at the first classical computers. Our first computers became commonplace in the 1930s and 1940s, with the hefty accomplishments of the ENIAC computer’s memorable debut. This gigantic milestone computer weighed in at thirty metric tons. Although it needed to be rewired in order to be reprogrammed initially and operated without any operating system, the ENIAC captured public attention and helped popularize the idea of computing as essential to everyday business and life. The first computers changed peoples’ lives and way of thinking far beyond what was originally envisioned, making the world better connected and informed than at any previous point in history.

Quantum Age Computing: The Power of the Qubit

Whereas classical computers are based on a principle of recordable, reproducible facts in the form of flat, two dimensional world of zeros and ones, Quantum Age computers are based on the physics of possibility. And what makes Quantum Age computers possible is a brand new idea we’ll become much more familiar with as we move more fully into the Quantum Age–the qubit.

The qubit, or quantum bit, is the simplest building block of quantum information. Qubits are designed to handle simultaneously superimposed possibilities, working together in entangled clusters of computational coherent complexity. A single quantum memory is capable of envisioning, for example, every single possible path home you can take during rush hour–all at once–so a quantum computer can instantaneously select the fastest possible route. Whereas classical computers have difficulty solving practical problems such as these, these real-life problems are tailor-made for quantum computers and natural quantum computational capabilities built into the photosynthesis process in plants.

Another mind-boggling difference between classical computers and Quantum Age computers is that qubits are much more than the sum of their parts. Whereas the bits and bytes of classical computers become just slightly more interesting and complex when more of them come together, truly mind-bending possibilities arise when two or more qubits are working together. Qubits work together in ways unlike anything ever seen in classical computing, beginning with entanglement, so that any single-qubit measurement performed will give a totally random result, whereas any time such a single-qubit measurement is performed on two entangled qubits, the two measurements will give opposite results. If you picture two entangled qubits as entangled coins being randomly flipped some great distance apart, so that whenever one came up Heads, the other would always be Tails, you see how very different the basics of Quantum Computing are from Classical computing.

Feeling the Pulse of Various Parallel Realities

One of the basic aspects of quantum computing is that energy is required to make a jump from one state to another. When quantum particles are observed to make a quantum jump, they can be seen to blink out of and into existence, like bright flashes of light, as they make the jump. There is an “oscillating phase” of vibration associated with each energy level state, so the faster the vibration, the higher the level of energy required to exist in that state. And whenever the energy of any one of the entangled particles in an entangled state increase energy, the entire entangled group of particles beat faster in that potential reality.

dwaveThe Impact of Quantum Computing on Daily Life

The very existence of qubits and entanglement is already having a powerful impact on society, in similar fashion to the way the advent of ever-smaller classical computers and the internet has had on our lives in the past several decades. While most people might not be able to explain the difference between a bit and a byte, or explain the difference between RAM and ROM in a computer, there is now a great reliance upon global communication via a freely accessible internet for communication of news from person to person and group to group.

First proposed in the 1980’s, quantum computing is expected to change everything from the way the stock market functions to every aspect of information security, weather forecasting, and trend analysis. Thanks to quantum superposition of states, quantum qubits contain information in all possible states, and entangled qubits thus have the capability to efficiently compute optimal solutions for some of the most complex, vexing and currently “unsolvable” problems known to man.

The first quantum computers for sale fetched fifteen million dollars, and was purchased by NASA and Google. The size of a large garden shed, the Canadian D-Wave-Two is the first commercially available quantum computer to hit the marketplace, and heralds the start of a brand new age of computing… and civilization.

The Quantum Age Mindset

The Zen of qubit processing logic can be more easily understood from an Eastern fourfold logic view. Rather than adopting a simple Yes/No, Zero/One, True/False dichotomy of classical computing bits, qubits exist in the realm of such possibilities as: True, False, True-and-False, and Not-True/Not-False. Such a lack of certainty in favor of optimization may seem strange at first, but this seemingly fuzzy logic is one of the core foundational aspects of the new Quantum Age.

The Quantum Age invites us to embrace uncertainty, recognize interconnectedness, and raise our level of energy in order to experience a better way of life. Through quantum entanglement, we find a mechanism by which to comprehend intuition. Through quantum teleportation we see how we can sometimes travel farther in less time. Through quantum coherence we better understand synchronicity and coincidence, and through quantum superposition we glean insights into spontaneous remissions from disease that can occur when people are in lucid dream or near death experience (NDE) states of mind.

Love always,
Cynthia Sue Larson
email Cynthia at

Let’s Connect

Facebook TwitterYouTube

The Science of Finding Lost Things

Cynthia Sue Larson

How to Find Lost Things with Quantum Jumping 

While I do my best to stay organized in order to minimize misplacing or losing things, every now and then something manages to get misplaced… and sometimes by the time I discover it’s missing, I need it right away. I’ve also noticed that I’m most likely to notice something missing when I’m in a hurry to go somewhere and don’t have a lot of time to search.


The first step in finding something that’s gone missing is to conduct a basic search, making sure that it’s not actually right nearby and we somehow missed it. A good basic  search involves:

(1) Retrace your steps to where the item was last seen and where it might have traveled,

(2) Ask anyone nearby if they’ve seen it,

(3) Ask the item to show itself by asking aloud a question my mother taught me when I was very young, “Now if I were ____________, where would I hide?” 

(4) Tidy things up while searching. Putting things together with other similar items creates a systematic process of elimination, making it easier to spot the missing item.


Expanding search categories so more of your brain is involved in your search is a natural process. Researchers at UC Berkeley have found that your brain calls in backup to find lost things. We typically organize objects in one of 1,000 categories in our mind, in such a way that when we see something we can assign it to a logical and easily retrievable location in memory. While this may not in itself be all that remarkable, recent neuroscience studies conducted at UC Berkeley have shown that when study participants are asked to look for something in particular, such as a person, their brains can be seen to widen the net of possible categories:

“… their brains also commandeered the brain regions responsible for perception of animals, body parts, action verbs and natural minerals and shifted them toward the perception of people. Likewise, when participants were seeking vehicles, the categories of tools, devices and structures were also stimulated by representations of vehicles.”


If you’ve tried all the above steps and still can’t locate your missing item, it’s time to pull out all the stops and resort to some truly amazing natural processes. As it turns out, nature knows a few tricks that physicists don’t, including how to utilize quantum coherence in natural processes such as photosynthesis. What does this have to do with finding lost things? Plenty. Just as scientists are now learning that plants try all possible pathways in order to maximize efficiency of light absorption in cells by virtue of a process called quantum coherence–so too can we take advantage of the fact that as many physicists believe, we and every object around us exists in a superposition of states.

The basic concept is this. If you’re looking for lost keys, for example, envision there is more than one reality in which your keys exist. In some realities, your keys seem to be gone, and in others your keys are nearby in a perfectly accessible place. You are now seeking one of many possible realities in which your keys return to you. Without getting overly concerned with which particular realities have your keys and which don’t, it’s best to adopt the attitude seen in many a “Missing” poster that reads, “No questions asked.” In the realm of quantum physics, in which Shrödinger’s cat is either alive or dead, we don’t so much care about the details as to which of many possible universes the keys come back from, as long as they do return.

Reality ShiftsOnce you’ve focused your attention on what you’re seeking, so as to expand your ability to find it (with more of your brainpower actively being put to work), it’s time to lighten your mood a little… and relax. Saying “Hope for reality shift!” the way my daughters did when they were young is actually an excellent way to feel a bit more light-spirited, thereby making it easier for you to make a jump between parallel worlds of possibility. What this phrase lacks in sophistication it more than compensates in successful returns of missing things–often either in places already thoroughly checked, or rather unexpected locations one would not expect (such as my toddler’s favorite juice cup suddenly perched atop the refrigerator, or water shoes resting atop my daughter’s pillow, or my favorite jewelry tucked inside a dresser drawer). When lost objects reappear, they often seem a little shy… preferring to quietly sneak into an out-of-the-way location, rather than startling people by exuberantly popping into existence right before their very eyes.

I hope you’ll feel inspired by reading real-life reality shift stories posted at RealityShifters and included in the book, Reality Shifts: When Consciousness Changes the Physical World. Sometimes, all it takes is a little bit of hope that missing things really can reappear… right out of the blue… and they do!


Dowsing is a great way to find lost things. I’ve had excellent success finding lost things using pendulum method that involves just my fingers–so no extra equipment is required. To use the hand dowsing method, you will create circles by touching your left thumb to left forefinger, and right thumb to right forefinger. These ‘circles’ can be intersected, so you have created a two-link chain. With this system, I’ve found “lost” family members in crowds of thousands of people very quickly, able to walk directly to them! The dowsing works through muscle strength. The idea is that when you are thinking or saying something you agree with or know to be true, such as, “I am alive,” your muscles will hold strong, even as you tug your hands away from one another, trying to pull the circles apart. If you think or say something you know is untrue, such as, “I am dead,” you will get no such strong support from your muscles, and your hands will easily separate as you pull them apart. Once you’ve tried out hand dowsing a few times to get familiar with how it feels when you get a “yes” or “no” response, you can use it to locate people in crowds (by asking yes or no questions as to whether they’re ahead of or behind you), and to locate lost objects.



Ball, Philip, “The Dawn of Quantum Biology,” Nature, 16 June 2011

Draxler, Breanna, “Your Brain Calls in Backup to Find Lost Things,” Discover Magazine, April 2013

Larson, Cynthia, Reality Shifts: When Consciousness Changes the Physical World, 2012

Quantum Consciousness

It’s indescribably refreshing to read a book that challenges us to better understand consciousness by asking the deceptively simple question, “What, if any, is the difference between brain and mind?” of scientists well-versed in quantum physics and consciousness.

Making such careful distinction between brain and mind is important, because the wording of this question  influences our understanding of consciousness by highlighting past assumptions. It might be easy to assume that consciousness resides in the brain, since consciousness is all about thought and thinking. But is it really true that all our thought originates in our brains?

Eva Herr describes how unexpectedly she experienced an extraordinary experience at the time of a very dark night of the soul, in her book, Consciousness:

Eva Herr

“In my case, the experience was completely unexpected and brought with it a sudden and powerful mystical experience that occurred literally overnight while I slept. It rapidly and radically changed what I had always known my life to be into something totally different. Prior to this event, I was caught up in the dogma of materialism, vanity, and self-consumed ideations. When I awoke the next morning, I was a different person with a different agenda in life… to fully understand consciousness—the God force—behind everything that exists. Accompanying this was a powerful but simplistic idea of agape—the love for one’s fellow man as one loves oneself, because we are all one. I no longer cared about materialism, vanity, and my “me-me” attitude. From that moment on, my focus was no longer on what others could do for me, but what could I do for others. This was a new approach for me.”

Clearly, there is something going on that is much bigger than any one of us, and sometimes, we are fortunate to catch a glimpse of this larger reality… this sense of Oneness.

The importance of considering quantum physics with regard to consciousness is that in the realm of the very, very small, it becomes clear that many old assumptions of science are out-dated–which implies our understanding of consciousness needs to be brought up to date. Just as we now understand that seeming solid material objects such as tables and chairs actually consist mostly of empty space with the smallest building blocks of matter existing as pure energy, we know that matter is not all there is. Quantum physics shows us that everything can be viewed as consisting of energy; non-local “spooky action at a distance” regularly occurs; observers definitely and consistently effect what they observe; and we can only predict results in terms of probabilities–never in absolutes.

I love the quiet boldness in the way Eva Herr’s new book Consciousness invites readers to explore different viewpoints from luminaries in the field of consciousness. Ms. Herr has experienced exceptional states of consciousness with corresponding sense of agape and knowing that we are all as one. Ms. Herr writes from a place of understanding that when we reach a level of awareness of Oneness, we are at a place where all is pure undifferentiated energy, and our state of consciousness is fundamentally different than when we see ourselves as separate.

The genius of Consciousness is then as much in the selection of interviewees capable of envisioning the topic of consciousness both intuitively and rationally, as it is in pursuing this age-old subject through the fresh new lens of modern-day scientific insights and discoveries. While each interviewee answers the same questions, their responses provide insights regarding how best we might view the relationship between the mind and the physical world… and the mind and All That Is. Eva Herr interviews: Thomas W. Campbell Jr., Brenda Dunn, Amit Goswami, Robert Jahn, Ervin Laszlo, Rollin McCraty, Dean Radin, Elizabeth Rauscher, Henry Stapp, Christian de Quincey, and William Tiller.

I hope you’ll enjoy watching and sharing my YouTube video summary of Quantum Consciousness — and I hope you’ll feel free to leave comments either here on this blog or on my YouTube video page.

Quantum jumping provides another great opportunity to ask my favorite question, “How good can it get?!” and make good use of whatever wonderful things imagination and inspiration reveal to you!

Love always,
Cynthia Sue Larson
email Cynthia at

Let’s Connect

Facebook TwitterYouTube

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: