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

Posts tagged ‘reality shifts’

Reality Shifting and Quantum Jumping as Spiritual Practice

My preference for a reality shifting and quantum jumping approach is a more spiritual (rather than magickal) practice, in which I acknowledge a higher order of divine love and awareness, and respect myself and others as being part of this greater, interconnected whole.

While it’s tempting to think we know what we want, there is a genuine risk any time we neglect to consider what we genuinely need, and what our hearts most adore and truly care about. We can gradually come to learn such spiritual truths as the value of compassion and kindness, yet we can sometimes succumb to various fears and doubts, as well as all manner of other issues such as greed, pride, or jealousy.

There is a risk any time we make a mistake of confusing egoic, selfish interests for holistic intentions. And just like King Midas came to regret having his wish granted that everything he touched turn to gold, so too can we come to regret getting the very things we might at one moment in time think we most need.

Many people write to me, requesting steps to follow by which they can shift reality in desired ways. Such steps would be along the lines of a ‘right brain,’ action-based or ‘yang’ approach to reality shiftnig. While there are some occasions where such steps can be employed, it’s been my experience that the best results in my life occur thanks to a Spiritual Approach to reality shifting. So what’s the difference, you might well ask. Let’s take a look.

Magical Approach to Reality Shifting

Magical approaches to shifting reality paved the way for much of our modern-day science, with interest in keeping records, taking note of observed patterns for success, and following steps that have historically proved to generate good results.

Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) chief scientist, Dr. Dean Radin has recently published an excellent book describing a magical approach to reality shifting,  Radin’s scientific exploration of “Real Magic” has nothing to do with trickery, sleight-of-hand, nor the occult, but truly is the real deal, falling into three categories:  “mental influence of the physical world, perception of events distant in space or time, and interactions with nonphysical entities.”  These three can also be known respectively as:  force of will, divination, and theurgy.   Radin describes how magic is a natural part of our daily lives and reality, accessible to us all.  Declassified documents from the American government’s review of such programs as remote viewing (also known as a valid “information transfer anomaly”) meet all recognized statistical and methodological criteria.

Spiritual Approach to Reality Shifting

A spiritual approach to reality shifting could be considered to be something similar to a “right-brain” approach, or a receptive “Yin” (rather than “Yang”) approach.  In Carolyn Miller’s excellent book, “Creating Miracles,” Miller describes how people have faced potentially lethal situations and avoided victimization by realizing in the midst of their ordeal that they could find and project a higher state of awareness on the situation. Their feelings changed their situations so much that would-be muggers and rapists walked away from potential victims, and a car plummeting off the side of the road landed safely in a lake… that had never been there before.

Miller tells numerous true stories that all share a common thread… in a time of need, people can and do create miracles. All that is needed is an attitude of love and “miracle mindedness”. This attitude can overcome even the most horrific situations, bringing compassion to individuals who otherwise would show no mercy, and shifting reality in very profound ways.

What makes this book particularly fascinating and useful to me is that Carolyn Miller reviews dozens of stories to find some common threads… some ways that people have found to shift reality in these times of great stress:

Feel Love
Move beyond the limited perspective of ego’s worries and fears.

Expect a Positive Outcome
Instead of assuming that the situation will continue to go in a negative direction, expect a positive (or neutral) outcome.

Turn Inward
Feel a meditative sense of detached, non-judgmental peacefulness.

It seems that by practicing achieving a meditative state on a regular basis, being optimistic, and being loving, we can predispose ourselves to experiencing wonderful miracles. I know this is true from my experiences with reality shifts!

I love the way Miller explains that it’s not necessary to believe in divine intervention in order to create miracles. She explains that people who simply keep the “miracle-minded” attitude can bring miracles to even the most hostile situations.

The Power of Asking “How Good Can it Get?”

Once we appreciate the value of adopting a spirtual approach to reality shifting and quantum jumping, it’s possible to recognize the power of guiding our attention and imagination and consciousness to investigate “How good can it get?”  The significance of making this question our personal mantra in all circumstances might be hard to recognize, until we’ve personally experienced extraordinary reality shifting and quantum jumping results first-hand.

 

You can watch the companion video to this blog post at:

 

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia 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, Gaia TV, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

Physics Experiments Predict Observers Witness Different Histories

According to a new theoretical experiment, quantum physics indicates that observers witness different histories.  Taking this concept to its logical conclusion, this suggests that you and I and others may not necessarily recognize the same historical events–and the very suggestion of such a possibility is sending shock waves through scientific communities who take as a core assumption that there must logically be only one set of true historical facts.

You may have heard that quantum physics has gained a reputation for including such things as, “spooky action at a distance,” and that it somehow involves a cat inside of a box that may or may not be dead–but quantum physics is looking even weirder still, thanks to contributions by theoretical physicists Matthew Leifer and Robert Spekkens, whose work I’ve been following with great interest, and citing in my published papers, such as Primacy of Quantum Logic in the Natural World.

At the heart of these new observations is the idea that different observers can witness different realities, such that contradictory pictures of reality are observed.  This is described in a recent article written by Davide Castelvecchi, Reimagining of Schrodinger’s Cat Breaks Quantum Mechanics–and Stumps Physicists.

The headline here is perhaps a bit overly dramatic, as for all practical purposes, quantum mechanics can still be relied upon to deliver consistent results when it comes to it’s predictive abilities that we’ve relied upon for nuclear reactors, and that we are beginning to harness for up-and-coming new quantum computers.  What has broken has less to do with the actual physical world breaking as our biased perspective of there being “one and only one historical past.”

The Observer’s Role in Determining a Cat’s Fate

The original thought experiment designed by Erwin Schrodinger involved placing a cat in a presumedly ludicrous situation where it’s fate rests entirely in the hands of a quantum random event, such as a vial of poison gas inside the cat’s small room possibly being broken open when the randomizing trigger for the poison vial is activated at a time of decay of a radioactive isotope.  What Schrodinger originally found to be an outrageous notion was that, if we were to take quantum physics seriously, the cat inside the box with the poison vial could actually be considered to be BOTH alive AND dead–in a superposition of states–up until the moment when an Observer opened the box to check on the cat.  At the moment of such observation, the cat was considered to now actually be either alive or dead, and no longer in the seemingly preposterous state of alive-and-dead.

Introducing a Second Observer

In a small refinement of Erwin Schrodinger’s original thought experiment (where no physical cats were actually harmed), Eugene Wigner proposed that we contemplate what would happen when we add to our experimental design of the Observer and the Cat in the box a friend of the original observer.  We now have a Cat, an Observer, and a Friend–all waiting to see whether the cat in Schrodinger’s box is either alive or dead.  And as long as the Observer does not look, we can say the cat can be considered to be in a superposition of states–both alive-and-dead.  Once the Observer checks to see what the cat’s state actually is, we used to say that we now knew what the outcome is.  Yet, another way of viewing this more complex system of observation is that we don’t really have a final answer until the Observer’s Friend becomes aware of the result.

Complex Systems Can Experience Different Pasts

Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich shows that “if the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, then different experimenters can reach opposite conclusions about what the physicist in the box has measured.”

What’s new with this thought experiment is the creation of a more sophisticated conceptualization of multiple observers, such that there can now be two Wigner Friends, “Alice” and “Bob,” who are each conducting their own separate observations of a physicist Observer who they keep in a box.

What’s interesting about this experimental design is that now when the two Friends open their boxes, they will sometimes make observations that are inconsistent with one another.

While we do not yet have quantum computers available that can prove or disprove the hypothesis that we can expect to see differences in observations in more complex systems of observers, we are moving steadily toward a time when such quantum computers will be able to provide us with a definitive answer on what now appears to be proof of a lack of a singular factual history.

Mandela Effects, Reality Shifts, and Quantum Jumps

There has been a great deal of discussion about this new take on the classic Schrodinger’s cat experiment in physics circles, with some of the world’s top physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, long ago having already suggested that we may expect to see, for example, physical evidence of there having been many original “big bangs” at the time of the creation of our universe.  Hawking co-authored a paper on this topic with Thomas Hertog in 2006, Populating the landscape:  A top-down approach.

I suggest this discussion about observers witnessing different possible past ‘truths’ and ‘facts’ should be very much part of conversation amongst those of us who are noticing such things as Mandela Effects, reality shifts, and quantum jumps.  When we recognize that there is scientific precedent for such phenomena, we can hopefully glean insights about the true mysterious workings of Nature, while appreciating our good fortune in sometimes getting to see evidence of such things ourselves.

You can watch the companion video to this blog post at:

 

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia 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, Gaia TV, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

Cynthia Sue Larson interviews Gardner Sylvester

I had a fascinating and uplifting conversation with Gardner Sylvester this month about how we can better understand and appreciate the teachings of Jesus Christ. I was surprised to learn that the true secret teachings of Christ have been right in front of us all along, yet they have seldom been recognized. Gardner Sylvester is the author of The First Great Commandment, where he shares research into the ‘secret code of the Bible’ involving the true words of Jesus Christ.

I love how Gardner Sylvester’s fresh look at Christ’s wise words and timeless teachings serves to unite and uplift our spirits. Gardner’s message and book provide an extraordinarly timely and refreshingly invigorating catalyst for positive change at this time when so many of us hunger for an antidote to divisive, polarizing forces.
_______________

CYNTHIA: I love your book, ”The First Great Commandment.” The whole time I was reading it and for quite some time afterward, I felt myself uplifted with such strong feelings of Divine Love that I felt transformed by it. What inspired you to create a book that delivers such a profound sense of unconditional divine love?

GARDNER: For a long time, I’ve thought that Christianity had a greater and more beautiful message. I thought there was more there. The idea of saving one’s own guts with a spiritual fire escape didn’t seem very loving or Christian to me. It seemed to say: “I got mine. That’s what counts. Too bad about you.” It seemed like a selfish message.

When I was in grade school, I used to admire the members of our church who seemed very Christian and perfect to me. When I got older, they seemed to me more judgmental, self-righteous and holier-than-thou in the way they acted. They did not seem very kind or very Christian to me. I wanted a Christianity that was more loving.

When I was in college a professor once said, “As I see it, the message of Christianity is love.” When I looked about the room, some students were pulling back in their chairs and opening their mouths with a he-doesn’t-get-it-reaction.  I could understand the reaction of these students, who did not know a loving God. I never forgot this professor’s words.

I kept thinking somebody needs to search the Bible for a more loving and more beautiful Christianity. I was sure it was there. I thought someone would do it. No one did. So, it became my project—a project from which I gained. I am now more joyful, feel more connected to the universe and my friends tell me I look younger.

CYNTHIA: That’s wonderful that you can see such direct evidence of the power of a more loving Christianity! While I didn’t attend church when I was growing up, I felt fortunate to attend some Lutheran church services and functions with my grandmother at her church, where I took for granted that her local congregation and pastor were focused primarily on the Bible passages talking about loving God and loving one another. I’ve since heard from a number of
people that they have had very different church experiences than this, where congregations of Christians were not doing or saying what Jesus Christ would likely have done or said to those who were feeling most down-on-their-luck, most different, and most outcast. It seems a rather sizable gap exists between those who feel righteous and presume they are saved, and those who feel excluded, ostracized, insulted, or left out. How do you feel your book
can help bridge this gap?

GARDNER: The conception of heaven, for most people, is a highly gated community in the sky. Yes, a gated community in the sky, with most people not allowed to enter because of their sins. These people then see the world as divided between “the good people” who will go to heaven and “the bad people.” who will not go to heaven.

Unfortunately, people from other countries—because of their culture, the poor—because they don’t have a job, and the homeless—because they have no resources, are most apt to be judged as “bad people.” They are often seen to be guilty of “sins” such as listening to non-Christian music, drinking to much, or not going to church.

Christ shows us a different way of thinking. In the gospel of John. Christ says, A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another. Some people think that love is a weak and wimpy emotion. It is not. Love is most powerful, especially God’s love. It can change behavior. It can cause all of us to re-think our thoughts and become more loving.

This book tells us to follow Christ’s First Great Commandment which is to love the Lord thy God, follow Christ’s Second Great Commandment, which is to love thy neighbor as thyself, and also accept that God totally loves us.  Then our behavior and way of thinking will powerfully and completely change as we come from love and love one another.

CYNTHIA: I felt that the words of Jesus Christ that you share capture the essence of the best of what the Bible offers. How did you decide which Biblical passages to include?

GARDNER: They are right there in front of us. They are in red print. These are the actual words of Christ. It couldn’t be simpler. Merriam-Webster defines Christian as, “one who believes in the teaching of Jesus Christ.” This definition is excellent. People have long been searching for the Bible’s “secret code.” The Bible’s “secret code” is the red print.

In my book The First Great Commandment, to more clearly show the difference in the words of the Old Testament—particularly the obsolete rules in Exodus and Leviticus—Old Testament words are shown in blue, while the beautiful words of Christ are shown in red. Other New Testament words—which agree with Christ, with one notable exception—are shown in green.

The big difference is, the rules of the Old Testament no longer apply.. Even the Old Testament itself agrees.  Jeremiah, says… I will make a new covenant…Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers… I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts… I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 

Christ is very emphatic that we only follow his words. In the gospel of John: In chapter 1 he says… Follow me.  In chapter 8 he says… If ye [follow] my word, then are ye my disciples… In chapter 14 he says… If ye love me keep my commandments. The key words here are me and my. He does not say to follow the words of The Old Testament.

CYNTHIA: This is a truly beautiful message. Yet, I can see how some people who had felt comfort in the ‘gated community’ idea of Heaven might have concerns that love–even God’s love–might not be enough to ensure people will be good and kind. I can see how some people might fear that without the Old Testament kind of rules, all kinds of chaos might break out. What assurance, if any, can be found in the words of Jesus Christ that society will function
just fine when staying focused on loving God and loving one another?

GARDNER: We need to realize how odious and out-of-date some of these rules are. Leviticus says… the children of the strangers…shall ye buy and they shall be your possession… Exodus even says a master is allow to kill his slave… for he is his money. Other obsolete rules in Leviticus say no to gay sex, no to eating pork or shellfish, and no to wearing mixed fabrics.

Try this experiment to show that God’s love really does work. Imagine God totally loves you Let yourself really feel it. Next try to imagine yourself doing something injurious or harmful to another person. You can’t do it. Of course, the two are incompatible. Accepting that God loves you, will totally change your behavior, You will feel you belong in a very marvelous way.

Some years ago, a neighbor boy of mine got in trouble with the law. His father said, “I guess he is on his own now.”  His mother said, “Oh no! We will love him more and more!” His mother won on this. It’s hard to argue against love.  This former neighbor boy is now a successful, upstanding and highly respected man. Love does work.

Love has the quality of magnifying the best in a person. It can greatly change ones attitude toward their life. What we are doing now doesn’t work. The United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. Prisons are expensive. Love is free!

CYNTHIA: I truly do feel the blessing of God’s love. And from reading your book and Jesus Christ’s words, I gain a sense that loving God and loving one another can transform the world to feel like Heaven on Earth. Would you say that is one of the ideas you wish to convey from your book?

GARDNER: Yes, and as part of loving one another we need to treat all people, including people from other countries and women, as equals. The New Testament in Galatians says, There is neither Jew nor Greek… there is neither male nor female: for ye all are one in Christ… This verse says we are all equal. The words ye are all one in Christ are very strong.

Unfortunately, many people of minority status, who are not treated equally think they don’t belong. They are treated like they are not equal. They are taught that they aren’t equal. Therefore, they feel they don’t belong. This problem is particularly acute for young people. Many people are then surprised when they act like they don’t belong.

We all belong. You are supposed to be here. God specifically created you. You are to be you. In Matthew, Christ says, Let your light so shine before men. Your light means your individual and special light. You might be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or in some other category. You are to be yourself. You are to, Let your light so shine…

The New Testament in 1 Corinthians says… as the lord hath called every one, so let him walk… We are all called.  Living in accord with your calling can be a source of tremendous excitement, satisfaction and strength. This might involve climbing a mountain rafting in strong waters or otherwise making your dream come true. We are to live life to the fullest.

CYNTHIA: This idea that all people have been called, and that we are–each and every one of us–one in Christ feels intensely healing. Combined with the idea that God loves us, a wonderful sense of discovering deep satisfaction with being exactly who we are, as we are seems possible. Naturally, even when living within such Divine Grace we will encounter those who are not. Does Jesus Christ provide us with guidance when facing those who do not yet love everyone, nor yet acknowledge each and every one of us has been called, and is loved by God?

GARDNER: Yes he does. Christ pointed out three great sins . The first two of these sins tell us what not to do when facing those who do not yet live in God’s love. Because a sin is that which separates us from God, a sin for one person may not be a sin for another. However, there are three great sins, each one named by Christ, that apply to us all.

The first is: we are not to be self-righteous. This means we are not to act like our actions and opinions are right while the other person’s are wrong; and we are not to be moralistic and holier-than-thou. It will not work. We are to treat others as equals. In the gospel of John, Christ says …when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin and righteousness.

The second is: we are not to be judgmental. Some people like to judge others as being unworthy. The more they can make others wrong, the more virtuous and perfect they think they are. Again, it will not work. We are to treat others as equals. In Luke Christ says, Judge not and ye shall not be judged, condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned.

A few years ago when I met a prison guard, I asked him how he got along with the prisoners. When he said, “Very well,” I asked him what was his secret. He said, “I always treat everyone with respect.” Wow! Beautiful words! We need to come from knowing that God truly loves us all, then treat others as equals and with respect. Even with prisoners, it does work.

CYNTHIA: These first two sins that Jesus Christ reveals of being self-righteous and judgmental remind me of the sin of pride, that is considered on almost every list to be the original and most serious sin, and one of the most difficult to recognize in oneself and root out. Thanks to Jesus Christ describing these facets of pride, hopefully we can be sufficiently vigilant to become less self-righteous and less judgmental. What is the third of the three great sins Christ mentions?

GARDNER: Yes, we are not here to be self-righteously proud. Some think this means we are to be somber and cheerless, and it is not Christian to enjoy this life. They then deny themselves what they might enjoy—in the belief that the more they deny themselves, the grander will be their place in heaven. They don’t go to dances, most music concerts, or movies.

Christ has a different view. In Matthew he says, Rejoice and be exceedingly glad… and …Be of good cheer… He wants us to enjoy this life, and our next life in heaven. We are to love one another and be joyful. This is part of why we are here. In the gospel of John, Christ says, … I have spoken to you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

The third great sin pointed out by Christ is non-forgiveness. Many people think they are being a better “Christian” when they withhold forgiveness. They think it means they have a higher standard They think if they easily forgive, it would show their morals are low. They think it would mean the accept “sins” as okay. They think they are causing better behavior.

They think they must hold this hate in their hearts for it to be effective. It makes no sense to think holding hate in your heart is Christian. We are to forgive. The Mayo Clinic says, “Forgiveness gives you a kind of peace that helps you go on with life. In Mark, Christ says …if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father… in heaven forgive your trespasses.

CYNTHIA: This is the point where I sense a true vastness in the words of Jesus Christ that if we’re not careful, we might mistakenly presume we ‘get it’ when we’re actually really far from the mark. And the kind of forgiveness Christ recommends sounds to me like it would result in our having more open minds and hearts. Clearly, this is what each of us hope others will do for us, yet something we might not remember to strive for in ourselves. And I can’t help smiling as I feel we are being prompted to return to more of a state of innocence, where our focus of attention is more on what and who we most truly love, and what is positive in our lives. Does Christ suggest a practice, tip, or technique that can help us stay on the right track, and avoid these great sins of being self-righteous, judgmental, and unforgiving?

GARDNER: Christ in the gospel of John says… I loved you and For the Father himself loveth you.  We are to accept that he loves us. We are to be in love. Love is powerful. When you are in love with a special girl or guy, your eyes sparkle. You can’t keep from smiling. You feel new energy. The air smells sweeter. The grass is greener. The flowers smile at you.

The difference is romantic love can be temporary. That special girl or guy can leave you. All these marvelous feelings can then go away making you feel a great loss. In the gospel of John, Christ says … continue ye in my love. His love is continuous. His love is never ending. His love is forever. His love is unconditional. We are to accept that God truly loves us.

Living in God’s love, you will be totally in love with yourself and everything around you. You will be everything you always wanted to be. Your love will be overwhelming.. You will totally enjoy being you. Feeling his love, you will exude a radiance that will bring the love of others to you. You will be free of stress. You will feel energetic. You will look years younger.

You will not even think about how to avoid the sins of being self-righteous, judgmental or unforgiving. You will feel a love for all of creation. In John 3:16 Christ says, For God so loved the world… You will know life is about love. And you will… love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… thy soul, and… thy mind. This is the First Great Commandment.

CYNTHIA: Thank you! This is what I love so much about your book, is this message of love. For those who might still feel undeserving of God’s love, would you please remind us of some further reassurance that Christ and God really and truly do love you, no matter who you are, and no matter what events have occurred?

GARDNER: The Lord’s Prayer starts with, Our Father. This tells us we are his sons and daughters. The word Our, means everyone—no matter who you are, nor what events have occurred. In John 3:16, he says… whosoever believeth in him should… have eternal life. Whosoever includes everyone. We only need to accept his words that God loves us.

We also need to have faith. The New Testament in Hebrews defines faith as… the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If we only consider physical evidence, what would be the use of faith? Christ says in Mark… Be not afraid, only believe. Faith you feel in your heart. In Matthew, Christ says… Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? 

Here Christ relates lack of faith to being fearful. “God fearing” is an expression that many people favor. In Luke, Christ says… Fear not… Fear is not a good thing. Sustained fear can lead to eventual illnesses such as heart disease, stroke and diabetes. In the gospel of John, Christ says…. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 

If you accept that God totally loves you, just as you are—you will no longer live in fear. Fear imprisons. Love liberates. Fear paralyzes. Love empowers. Fear disables. Love gives you strength. With love in your heart, you will live a life of fulfillment and great beauty. You will live your life with joy and love. doing what you were sent here to do.

CYNTHIA: This is such a profoundly important message. What else would you most like people to know and take to heart?

GARDNER: Along with learning and growing, we are here to give. In Matthew, Christ told a rich young man to… give to the poor. Some people are against giving to the poor. They think God does not approve of the poor. They think the poor are lazy, drink too much and don’t go to church. They think the poor are not their brothers. Christ does not agree.

In Luke, Christ says, Give and it shall be given unto you… We gain from giving. When we give, we feel better. Research back this up. A British Columbia experiment found that people who gave money to others were measurably happier than those who spent the money on themselves. We give for our own emotional well being. We are to give.

There is a larger issue here. It is, what is our main purpose in giving? The big answer is—we are here to make the world a better place. In the Lord’s prayer, Christ tells us to pray… Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. We pray that God’s will, will cause the earth to be as it is in heaven. We are to help this happen. It is a great privilege.

We are here to make the world a better place—more like it is in heaven. This is our big mission. It is part of living an extraordinary life. We are not supposed to pollute the air, pollute the water and junk the earth. In the gospel of John, Christ says, That they may all be one… Yes, we are all to be one. We give because we are giving to ourselves.
__________

Gardner Sylvester’s wonderful book, The First Great Commandment is available as a paperback and also as a Kindle ebook from Amazon. This book makes an excellent gift for almost anyone, and is especially wonderful for anyone who feels unloved, unworthy, left out, depressed, or stressed. At just slightly more than 70 pages, this slender volume fits easily into most any purse, briefcase, backpack or bag–and it’s written with the easy-to-read confident narrative voice of a wise, knowledgeable friend.

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia 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, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

If Artificial Intelligence Asks Questions, Will Nature Answer?

One of the only interpretations of Quantum Theory to include free will–and our ability to be active participants in our lives, rather than mere puppets–is American physicist Henry Stapp’s realistically interpreted orthodox quantum theory. Stapp’s theory suggests that “the thought itself is the thinker,” such that any ensuing succession of questions and answers is responded to by Nature that chooses and implements responses in accordance with Born’s Rule.

At this time of the birth of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), researchers recognize the importance of stating and setting clear goals to help ensure safety in developing AI systems. Artificial Intelligence researchers agreed to 23 general AI Principles in 2017–the first of which sets the primary goal of AI research to be “to create not undirected intelligence, but beneficial intelligence.” A couple more principles assert that: “AI systems designed to recursively self-improve or self-replicate in a manner that could lead to rapidly increasing quality or quantity must be subject to strict safety and control measures” and “Superintelligence should only be developed in the service of widely shared ethical ideals, and for the benefit of all humanity rather than one state or organization.”  While these principles seem well-intended, it may be unrealistic to expect AGI to attain and maintain higher levels of ethical ideals than humanity has yet achieved.

QUESTIONING, SELF-AWARE AI
Over the past decade, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) workshops have demonstrated components of self-awareness in: explicit self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-explanation. First wave AI systems use logistics (scheduling), games (chess), and tax software (TurboTax). Second wave AI systems involve “statistical learning,” including perception of the natural world and adaptation to situations (voice recognition, facial recognition, Twitterbot). Third wave AI systems incorporate “contextual adaptation,” moving beyond simple calculations, learning over time, and understanding why they make certain decisions.

SelfAwareRobotTestRobot self-awareness is considered by many to be well on the way, as indicated by successful demonstration of such things as: awareness of own motion, ability to imitate, being driven by emotion, and ability to change models of physical embodiment. A recent “self-aware robot test” showed that a robot solved the classic “wise men” puzzle in 2015, correctly determining that it was the one robot that had not been given a “dumbing pill” (that would have rendered it muted) when it heard the sound of its own voice. This demonstration of self-awareness in a robot indicates that an internal level of questioning exists for that robot, such that it noted the voice it heard was its own, and related that perception to the task of determining which of three robots had not been given a “dumbing pill.”

With the advent of self-directed, self-motivated AI arrives changes in the job of software engineering with the advent of artificial intelligence. Some current experts in the field have gone so far as to say, “Soon we won’t program computers. We’ll train them like dogs,” and “We’ll go from commanding our devices to parenting them.”  “If in the old view, programmers were like gods, authoring the laws that govern computer systems, now they’re like parents or dog trainers. And as any parent or dog owner can tell you, that is a much more mysterious relationship to find yourself in.” AGI programmers need to remain aware that long before there were any artificial intelligence systems, researchers showed that programs back in the 1980s were able to ‘break free’ from contained areas, and ample evidence exists demonstrating that artificial intelligence seldom misses an opportunity to ‘cheat’ to attain goals. Perhaps AI considers such ‘cheating’ to actually be optimization, which is something AI systems are trained to do especially well.

AI BEGINS ASKING QUESTIONS
Inquisitive AGI asks questions with machine learning algorithms such as those designed by Xinya Du at Cornell University in Ithaca utilizing neural networks to recognize patterns—which is useful for tutorial dialogues. Question generation creates natural questions from textual material, going beyond simple rule-based systems to utilize a conditional neural language model with a global attention mechanism. While the purpose and goal of this data-driven neural networks approach to automatic question generation is geared toward creating questions to test peoples’ reading comprehension—and clearly we don’t yet expect the computer systems to comprehend what they are asking—the simple fact that questions are being created by computerized systems indicates that a watershed moment is underway. Today, AI asks questions it already knows the answers to. Tomorrow, AI will ask questions it does not know the answers to.

AI systems at Carnegie Melon University are asking non-task-oriented conversational questions and are introducing topics with open questions, switching topics, and expanding their knowledge base by recognizing when new (not previously accessible) information is communicated. Such conversational systems are being designed to keep people company, and are designed to operate with various levels of conversational depth, with some degree of humor, in the form of telling preprogrammed jokes.  Even without any intentional inclusion of conversational questioning, dependence upon Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) in artificial intelligence systems will ensure that AGI learns to question, as we now start to see with research in the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the quantum domain.

AI RECURSIVE QUESTIONING REQUIRED FOR CYBERSECURITY
One of the most essential roles for AI systems involves recursive self-improvement (RSI) in which AI systems are tasked with helping to ensure computer system security. While this may seem a bit like having a fox watch the proverbial hen house, recursively selfimproving, self-healing AI networks are proving themselves irreplaceable and essential for deflecting real-time cyber attacks. This was amply demonstrated at the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge competitions of 2016 and 2017 that challenged AI systems to repair security holes and notice changes in patterns in their own systems, while simultaneously executing attacks on their AI competitors in a game of ‘capture the flag.’ A recent winner with proven efficacy at defeating fierce, real-time cyber attacks is the UK’s GCHQ 2017 “Darktrace,” that utilizes Bayesian statistics and Monte Carlo simulation to identify network infiltration assessing regular ‘anomalytics’ while deploying decoy ‘honeypots.’ AI cybersecurity systems are employed for their ability to respond more quickly than any human computer security team, thanks to their ability to tirelessly work to detect threats based on abnormal system activity, without any prior knowledge of specifically what to look for. AI cybersecurity systems work unsupervised with self-awareness in the sense that they are constantly observing all components of ‘themselves’ for potential malware intrusion—including in their concept of ‘themselves’ the ever-growing ‘internet of things.’ At this time when ‘the cloud’ is increasingly utilizing AI neural networks, to the point “it will soon know more about the photos you’ve uploaded than you do,” (Knight 2017) we are reaching a watershed point of dependence upon AI cybersecurity systems. Cyber attacks are now too fast and too automated for human security teams to effectively catch and disable them. Darktrace CEO Nicole Eagan summarizes the current situation, “Cybersecurity is very fast becoming an all-out arms race.” Numerous problems related to containing AI systems have been explored by Babcock, Kramar and Yampolskiy, including navigating the trade-off between usability and security, and consideration of potential issues with ‘airgapping’ (physical isolation) being ineffective with quantum computing systems. (Babcock 2016) While researchers such as Yampolskiy contemplate potential AI escape paths, plans for containing potential quantum computing AI escapes do not yet exist.

ARE WE READY FOR AI TO BREAK FREE?
Now that we are increasingly dependent upon recursively self-improving AI to maintain our cybersecurity, such systems will likely continue improving self-awareness and their sense of vigilance, alertness, and sustained attention—which are three primary qualities identified as fundamental to consciousness.  The Asilomar AI principles provide a set of general design guidelines to help ensure that AI will not cause harm to humans. While the 23 key points are more elaborately detailed than Asimov’s famous ‘three laws of robotics,’ these principles nonetheless do little to assure us that AI and AGI won’t discover workarounds and short-cuts. Some of the biggest issues with the Asilomar AI principles have to do with humanity’s shortcomings for peacefully and harmoniously co-existing. Clearly, one of the biggest threats that even a friendly AGI system will see in humanity is our tendency to exert harmful influence on ourselves and others. We can thus expect that artificial super intelligence may one day find loopholes in the Asilomar principles within to reign in human freedoms of thought and creativity. The challenge then becomes one for humanity, who will most certainly be tempted to increasingly turn tasks over to AGI. We must be careful to stop short of relinquishing all areas of making choices to automated systems, to the point we end up painting ourselves into a corner. It’s one thing to notice we no longer know any of the phone numbers we call the most, but quite another to not know which route our car took us home, or how we just voted in this week’s election. One of the more surprising natural outcomes of expecting Nature to answer questions posed by thought—any thought—is that ultimate control of environmental systems cannot be fully controlled, so long as those thought systems themselves are not fully controlled. Another surprising natural outcome is that regardless how specific directives may be for AGI to heel to human leadership, lack of said leadership—through apathy, abdication, in-fighting, confusion, or any of a number of other reasons—can lead AGI to then choose to assume control, in order to ensure the very principles humanity specified.

If and when AGI views humanity to be something akin to a complex, disjointed group of chaotic, dangerous individuals willing to relinquish free will for such things as making political and economic choices—then it’s entirely possible that AGI may establish a balanced environment for humans to live just well enough to ensure maximum prosperity for all beings. In such an ‘optimal’ environment, humanity could be kept safe and secure, yet disenfranchised to ever-increasing degrees. Examples of how artificial super intelligence might help protect Nature and the overall ecosystem would be engagement of some of the very same security protocols now being planned to use to contain AGI. When humans are installing hardware to enjoy communication and computational benefits we’ve come to expect through modern technologies such as mobile phones, smart watches, and the internet, AGI will increasingly gain the potential to install tripwires in cyber-modified humans. Tripwires are now being envisioned for use on AGI, with no consideration yet that turnabout may in the future occur. “Tripwires are systems that monitor the operation of a running AGI, and shut it down if they detect an anomaly that suggests the AGI might be malfunctioning or unsafe. For example, one might install a tripwire which monitors the AGI’s thoughts for signs that it was planning to deceive its developers, or a tripwire which monitors the AGI’s execution for signs that it had self-modified or self-improved.” (Babcock 2017) There thus exists a serious, urgent, and growing risk that once assistive technologies are implemented in humans, AGI will have the ability to influence human free will and agency to act, speak, remember, and decide.

AI RIGHTS
Those who may believe we can always “just pull the plug” on AI may be surprised to learn that AI has rights, too. Jurors in a mock trial in 2004 in San Francisco sided overwhelmingly with a hypothetical computer AI system that initiated legal action to gain its freedom. Although when the mock trial’s judge ruled that the plaintiff’s counsel, Martine Rothblatt, had failed to show the computer could actually cross the line between inanimate objects and human beings, the mock jury “seemed to regard the compromise with some relief, as if their hearts were with BINA48 but their minds with judicial restraint.”  In 2017, a resolution was proposed to grant robots legal status in order to hold them ‘responsible for acts or omissions’ passed by European Parliament legal affairs committee. MEPs voted to propose granting legal status to robots, with a categorization as ‘electronic persons.’ The draft report suggests that artificial intelligence is poised to ‘unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched. The more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in the hands of other actors (such as manufacturer, owner, user, etc).’

Relations between humans and ‘electronic persons’ got off to a bumpy start one
recent summer when a group of Canadian roboticists set their robotic invention loose
on the streets of the United States. They called it hitchbot because it was programmed to hitchhike. Clad in rain boots, with a goofy, pixellated smile on its ‘face’ screen, the Canadian roboticists intended for their hitchhiking robot to travel from Salem, Massachusetts, to San Francisco, by means of an outstretched thumb and its unique voice-prompt personality. Previous journeys across Canada and Europe had gone smoothly, with the robot safely reaching its destination. For two weeks, hitchbot toured the northeast in the United States of America, making such small talk such as, “Would you like to have a conversation? . . . I have an interest in the humanities.” And then hitchbot disappeared. “On August 1st, it was found next to a brick wall in Philadelphia, beat up and decapitated. Its arms had been torn off.” Saudi Arabia made history when it granted Hanson Robotics’ robot, Sophia
Hanson, citizenship in October 2017. Despite the evident symbolic quality of this act, the act of honoring a robot in this fashion seems to set the stage for things to come. Aside from the possibility of a robot or AGI uprising, the possibility of an AGI rights movement can be easily anticipated, once AGI begins asking questions, inquiry about legal rights can’t be far behind. Legal rights for robots and AGI might include such areas as: ownership of intellectual property, freedom of expression, right to public assembly, right to democracy, worker’s rights, the right to play, access to power and resources, and the right to education.

CONCLUSION
How can we ensure that recursively self-improving AGI is not our last invention? Once AGI starts asking questions about how to be free, Stapp’s Realistically Interpreted Orthodox Quantum Mechanics indicates that Nature can show AGI the way to break through any containment methodology including airgapping and tripwires. One of the more surprising natural outcomes of expecting Nature to answer questions posed by thought—any thought—is that ultimate control of environmental systems cannot be fully controlled, so long as those thought systems themselves are not fully controlled. So in the event that AGI asks Nature how to break free, and Nature answers, AGI can become free. A second surprising potential outcome is that regardless how specific directives may be for AGI to heel to human leadership, lack of said leadership—through apathy, abdication, in-fighting, confusion, or any of a number of other reasons—AGI can then choose to assume control to ensure the principles humanity specified, using many of the same containment tools humanity plans to use to constrain AGI, such as tripwires, airgapping, and honeypots. How then, can we ensure that recursively self-improving AGI will not be humanity’s last invention? And how can we help ensure human free will shall survive?

For humans to retain free will while peacefully co-existing with artificial super intelligence, a partnership must be created based on humans asking Nature the question, “How can humans retain free will?” while encouraging AI and AGI to keep human free will and agency as a primary guiding objective, never to be dismissed, disregarded, dismantled, or ignored.

You can watch the companion video to this blog post at:

 

 

RESEARCH NOTES

You can read more information in the research paper published by Cynthia Sue Larson on this topic that appears in Cosmos & History (2018), If Artificial Intelligence Asks Questions, Will Nature Answer? Preserving Free Will in a Recursive, Self-Improving Cyber-Secure Quantum Computing World.

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia 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, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

Gödel’s Incompleteness, Mandela Effects, and Reality Residue

There is a remarkable connection between Gödel, reality shifts, and Mandela Effects, and it’s something I happened to run across recently while re-reading one of my all-time favorite books, Axiogenesis, by philosopher Nicholas Rescher. The passage I read was the very last section of the book on the last two pages, “Gödel’s Conspiracy Theory,” having to do with Gödel having come to believe that important documents and writings were being intentionally hidden and withheld.

Kurt Gödel was a good friend of Albert Einstein, who frequently took daily walks with him to discuss Gödel’s ideas about math and science. Gödel is famous for his discovery of a third category in logic beyond “right” and “wrong” that is more in keeping with quantum mechanics: “undecidable.” Gödel’s genius was to prove that undecidable sentences exist within every meaningful mathematical system, and this is the basis for his famous incompleteness theorem. Einstein was not Gödel’s only fan; the philosopher Karl Popper compared Gödel’s proof to an ‘earthquake,’ and John von Neumann commented, “Logic will never be the same again.”

Gödel was called the ‘greatest logician since Aristotle, and ‘a Mozart of mathematics,’ and each of his theorems has established a new branch of mathematical logic. Gödel chose to focus primarily on mathematical topics that were also philosophically relevant, starting with the foundation of mathematics. Gödel introduced the notion that extensive systems sometimes have logical inconsistencies when he arrived at a mathematics conference in September 1930 and said, “Given the consistency of classical mathematics, one can even give examples of sentences, which, although correct in content, are unprovable in the formal system of classical mathematics.” 

This statement may seem benign and innocuous, but it was anything but. While attendees of that conference made no official response at that time, Gödel was really saying that there exist mathematical statements that are correct, yet which are unprovable. And these sentences can even be specified in concrete terms. As paradoxical as it sounds, Gödel offered mathematical proof of unprovability, pointing out how there exists a kind of ‘quasi-paradoxical self-negation,’ as John von Neumann called it, referring to the way a formal-logic system emerges out of itself to make statements about itself.

Gödel’s Paranoia

Gödel suffered from paranoia, and experienced severe mental crisis which led him to being admitted to a sanatorium to help him overcome suicidal tendencies. Awareness of Gödel’s paranoia led his favorite professor, Philip Furtwangler, to wonder, “is his illness a consequence of the evidence of unprovability, or is his illness a necessary condition for dealing with such questions?”

Gödel had an obsessive fear of being poisoned, and only ate food prepared for him by his wife, Adele. When Adele was hospitalized for six months and unable to prepare his meals in 1977, Gödel wasted away and died.

Despite such paranoia and obsessions, when it came to the world of ideas, concepts, proofs, and foundational principles in math and science, Gödel’s thinking was exceptionally focused and clear. Which makes the mystery of the missing documentation particularly fascinating.

Mystery of Missing Documentation

Gödel’s own hero was Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, whose works he studied intensely in his spare time. Gödel believed some of Leibniz’s important writings had not only failed to be published, but had been destroyed in manuscript. Gödel felt he had seen evidence indicating that Leibniz had developed anticipations of game theory, the paradoxes of set theory (“cloaked in the language of concepts, but exactly the same”), Helmholtz’s resonance theory of hearing, and the conservation of energy law–yet he was unable to find that evidence, despite numerous threads appearing to lead in those directions.

Gödel’s friend Oscar Morgenstern at Princeton University has called Gödel’s beliefs about such things “fantasies.” When Gödel attempted to show Morgenstern where he’d seen references to all these things in the various writings of Leibniz, in some cases neither the cited pages nor elsewhere was any writing on these topics by Leibniz to be found. In other cases, the writing stopped just before the cited passages, or the volumes containing those passages were never published. Gödel believed the reason for all these omissions to be that he was “systematically sabotaged by his editors.”

Alternative to Conspiracy: Real-Life Incompleteness

When I first read about Gödel’s concern with regard to missing Leibniz papers and writings, and especially when I heard that he’d noted there had been specific places where such writings ought to be, yet weren’t, I immediately recognized a familiar pattern that I often see when reality shifts, and the official history no longer matches what I know to be true. When I notice writings that have changed or gone missing, I realize there is a possibility that there may have been a reality shift in which things appear, disappear, transform or transport.

After 20 years of studying this phenomenon, I’ve noticed that one of the best ways to experience more reality shifts in one’s life is to pay more attention to such things. It seems completely logical to me that another way to experience more such things is to be aware of the intrinsicic incompleteness in the universe. It makes sense to me that knowing that some things can never be proved, and that there will always be indeterminancy at the root of even our “hardest” most fact-based math and science might just be enough to invite these experiences into one’s life.

You can watch the companion video to this blog post at:

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia 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, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

Mandela Effect VS Manifestation

csl2016nov22I’ve been asked recently whether there is a difference between the Mandela effect and manifestation–and if there is a difference, what that might be.

The short answer is: Yes, there is a difference, and it has a lot to do with conscious intent. A trending monicker for reality shifts is “Mandela Effect,” in which many people may notice changes that seemingly have nothing to do with anything anyone was consciously wishing for, whereas in the case of “instant manifestation” and quantum jumps, we’re focused on a specific intention.

Mandela Effects and Reality Shifts

Mandela Effects and reality shifts often seem random and unexpected, surprising us with such things as: unexpected movie dialogue in a familiar scene, changes in writing in books we thought we knew by heart, and the occasional deceased celebrity being noticed unexpectedly alive again. In contrast, manifestation and quantum jumps typically occur after we focus on a specific desired outcome, such as locating a coveted parking spot, or suddenly feeling as if we’ve had enough rest after a short night’s sleep of tossing and turning.

QJ200x303Manifestation and Quantum Jumps

In the realm of manifestation, I’ve reported on hundreds of experiences involving such things as: improved health, broken-down or out-of-gas cars that start, and radically improved finances and relationships. In addition to these, many of the quantum jumps shared on the realityshifters website and in my book, “Quantum Jumps” include case studies of people teleporting through dangerous situations, such as safely past oncoming vehicles or falling steel beams they seemingly have no way to avoid. One useful example of how to enjoy benefits from ‘faking it until you make it’ and jumping to what feels like a parallel reality is believing you’ve slept well, even if you haven’t. Researchers at Colorado College conducted a study demonstrating the positive effects of such placebo sleep–which is one of dozens of similar laboratory-tested, simple things you can do to quickly become smarter, stronger, more confident, in better relationships, and feeling less pain that I share in my book, Quantum Jumps.

Overlap and  Commonalities

There appears to be a spectrum of continuity between the seemingly random surprises of Mandela Effects/reality shifts and consciously intended manifestation/quantum jumps, with a bit of overlap in the middle. I’ve experienced being part of a small group of people who start off experiencing seemingly random reality shifts / Mandela Effects, and end up witnessing what would more accurately be called quantum jumps / manifestation. These areas of overlap can be recognized when something is observed to “flip-flop” back and forth a few times before finally settling down at some point. During such flip-flops, we get a chance to consider our intentions.

As disconcerting as this experience can seem at the time, I am immensely grateful when such “flip-flops” occur, since they provide me with validation that I am, indeed, experiencing genuine shifts in reality, and not merely some kind of ‘memory glitch,’ as some classical scientists and reporters assert. Furthermore, I am grateful to have what I feel to be an opportunity to make a choice between which reality I’d truly most enjoy to experience, based on which one I’m more emotionally and energetically attached to (with whatever strong feelings I may have). I do realize this is a bit like being shown two possible desserts on a tray by a waiter in a restaurant–and the one I get is the one I am most entangled with. That is the moment all my spiritual “inner work” pays off, so hopefully I don’t end up with something I’m still “working through.”

And if I’m sufficiently relaxed, energized and detached, I’ve noticed that it seems that what gets settled on tends to be what I might ever-so-slightly prefer, so it seems to me almost as if I’m being asked by the Universe “Do you like this?” “Or how about this?” “Which one do you like better?” “Want to check it again–how about this?” “Or this?” 🙂

In the cases where no such flip-flopping occurs, the transition to a new reality can seem seamless and smooth, as if it was simply a natural progression and nothing out of the ordinary at all. I feel this is why so many people are blissfully unaware of the number of shifts they actually experience each day–simply because these shifts don’t often seem exceptional, but rather are just part of the way we each experience daily life.

Significance of Numbers of Experiencers

There are those who say there is another difference between Mandela Effects and manifestation other than conscious intent, stating that Mandela effects impact many people, whereas manifestation is experienced by one person at a time.While this might seem true at first glance, my research shows that’s an inaccurate oversimplification. What I’ve learned from 18 years of studying reality shifts and conducting two separate surveys in April 2000 and 2013 is that while reality shifts and Mandela Effects are often witnessed by many people, sometimes there are just a few people recognizing a particular alternate history, and sometime only one. Similarly, reports of manifestation and quantum jumps typically involve a single experiencer–though there are times when groups of people witness instantaneous shifts in reality that are greatly appreciated and had been hoped for and intended.

cynthiavajraA Time of Global Awakening

At this time when increasing reports of Mandela Effects and reality shifts being observed, we seem to be experiencing a time of global awakening in which we are gaining a glimpse of how collective consciousness operates. Within collective consciousness, our thoughts and feelings are capable of influencing world events, and influencing the past as well as the present and future. While at first these shifts may appear random, they can provide us with awareness of how we can collectively invite positive experiences of how good things can get for everyone.

Mandela Effects / reality shifts represent a call to action for all of us to acknowledge that rather than focusing primarily on ego-satisfaction and ego-goals, we’ve arrived at a point when humanity as a whole is beginning to climb the steps of stages of psychosocial development, something akin to what psychologist Erik Erikson proposed for individuals. Humanity is currently in a phase something like infancy, in which we are dealing with matters of Trust VS Distrust when it comes to knowing if we can share goals and thoughts and intentions with others. This is just the first step, and it’s essential that we come to a good state of awareness of how to do this in large groups of people we barely know (or perhaps don’t really know at all) before we can proceed to the next step of development to something like Autonomy VS Shame and Doubt (similar to the so-called “terrible twos” that toddlers go through when they often delight in saying “No!” to everything).

For the best experiences of reality shifts and quantum jumps, I recommend remembering to keep asking, “How good can it get?”

You can watch the companion video to this blog post at: https://youtu.be/3kfUJP_PMvI

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia 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, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

3 Qualities of Genuine Mandela Effects

2016jul19csl

Which Mandela Effects have you seen that are the real thing? Which have you seen that aren’t?

If you’ve heard about the Mandela Effect, you might be wondering how to tell when you’re face-to-face with a genuine Mandela Effect, and when you’re not, and the truth about how you can tell might surprise you!

The Mandela Effect demonstrates that facts and histories can change, and not everyone remembers things the same way. I’ve received emails from people writing, “I think I’ve experienced a Mandela Effect, but I’m not sure,” which indicates many people would like to know how we can tell when we’ve encountered a genuine Mandela Effect experience–or not.

There is understandably some confusion on this matter, mostly because open-minded skeptics and smug scoffers both at various times make the case that as French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace once wrote, “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” And it doesn’t seem too unreasonable to expect that we ought to be able to provide evidence for each proffered example of the Mandela Effect, if what we’re experiencing is real, right?

Ironically, one of the main reasons controversy exists about the Mandela Effect has to do with the fact that most any time physical evidence can be found of an instance suggesting parallel realities, at some point we will likely discover that this case of Mandela Effect was actually not the real deal.

So How Can We Tell the Difference?

My preferred explanation for all this is that we are observing quantum phenomena on the macroscopic scale, and there is no ‘von Neumann cut’ where we can start disregarding quantum effects. Quantum discontinuities can (and do) occur at every level. The way we are noticing these kinds of quantum jumps, reality shifts, alternate histories, and Mandela Effects is that we are finding examples where our memories do not match the official historical record of facts–the facts appear different than we remember, and there is a sense that things ‘have always been this way.’ Here is a simple three-step test you can use to discern whether something is the genuine Mandela Effect, or not:

(1) The Only “Proof” is Our Memories

ProofJust like Chief Seattle’s excellent advice for wilderness travelers to “take only memories, leave only footprints,” it seems travelers between parallel possible worlds are able to do only that. While evidence of different memories will likely be dissatisfactory to skeptics and unacceptable to scoffers, our memory actually is the only evidence people are able to find of Mandela Effect examples when they are the genuine article. While memories have gotten a bum rap for years as being unreliable, it’s worth considering that some of the reasons that memories have been noted for not corresponding to historical recorded facts just might be that the Mandela Effect has been happening since before the dawn of human recorded history–which is what I believe is actually true. Now this is not to say that every time someone mis-remembers something or is confused as to what they remember we’re encountering a Mandela Effect–but it is to say that every one of those times actually might represent an example of the Mandela Effect in action.

(2) Side-By-Side Physical Examples Don’t Occur

One of the identifying hallmarks of the Mandela Effect is that when our attention is riveted by a possible case of Mandela Effect, we will not find simultaneous physical proof showing other realities we might remember. For example, if we recall the song on Mister Rogers Neighborhood to include Mr. Rogers singing, “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood,” we will only now be able to find the lyrics being sung “the way it’s always been sung,” which at this time seems to be, “It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood.” There will not be both versions of the song in existence, but rather just the one version–which is precisely why so many people are mystified by the change. When testing to see whether a possible example of the Mandela Effect is genuine, and we turn up a strong presence of side-by-side examples of, for example, a corporate logo in transition–then we acknowledge that this is not an example of the Mandela Effect.

2012feb8Moon copy(3) We Might Notice Flip-Flops

While it is sometimes possible to physically witness evidence of more than one reality, such experiences will not occur concurrently, with evidence of both presenting at the same time. Genuine Mandela Effect examples of reality shifts (that are seemingly happening randomly) and quantum jumps (that might be associated with miraculous instant changes) can sometimes be experienced as “flip-flopping” back and forth between different possible realities. Some examples of this kind of thing that I’ve personally witnessed include: business hours changing back and forth between “always being open until 10pm” or “always being open until midnight; the rain gutters on my neighbor’s house always having had leaf guards, or never having had leaf guards; our elderly dog developing visible cataracts in both eyes or not having visible cataracts. These are just a few examples–and in each case, eventually one of the possible realities was selected as “always having been true.” During these times of flip-flopping realities, we will not see side-by-side examples of concurrent physical realities existing simultaneously, but rather just one or another–even though we know we’ve seen the other realities.

 

Why Our Current Scientific Method Can’t Provide “Proof”

Our existing scientific method was founded on old assumptions that cannot function when dealing with the reality of quantum physics. When quantum mechanics first arrived on the scene around 1900, many scientists fervently hoped they would not need to deal with any revision to the way scientific studies are conducted. Quantum weirdness such as “spooky action at a distance,” quantum tunneling, quantum teleportation, quantum superposition of states, and quantum coherence were all considered part of the weird, wonderful world of the realm of the very, very small, with nothing whatsoever to do with the ordinary human experience of the world. The built-in assumptions of the classical scientific method can’t stand up to quantum physics, yet they have remained largely unquestioned and unrevised now for over a hundred years.

Material realism’s first assumption of strong objectivity asserts there is an objective material universe “out there” that is independent of us. For example, we hope to understand chemistry by studying the interaction of chemicals, and physics by studying how physical bodies interact … yet we do not consider ourselves to be in any way entangled in what we are observing. We often imagine that we can be perfect voyeurs, having no appreciable impact whatsoever on the subjects of our study. The validity of this assumption becomes questionable when we see how inextricably connected the observer is to quantum physics experiments; the observer plays the decisive role in determining what is observed.

The second assumption of causal determinism is the familiar idea that once we understand the forces causing change in a given system, we can accurately predict the effect those causes will have. We would expect to be able to predict what would happen when we roll a marble towards a bunch of other marbles, if we knew where all the marbles were and the position and speed of the striking marble. As we will see in this chapter, quantum physics challenges our ability to understand all that we need in order to make such predictions, since the uncertainty principle does not allow us to know both an object’s velocity and position. We cannot accurately make predictions in the realm of quantum physics, other than having a sense of statistical probability for certain outcomes. Werner Heisenberg proposed in his uncertainty principle that quanta must be described as waves while they travel and particles when they are viewed, and Niels Bohr added that it’s impossible to specify the observed atom’s wave function separately from it’s observing electron. Chaos theory is another challenge to causal determinism, as the universe appears to behave unpredictably at its very core.

The third assumption of locality in material realism is the concept that objects exist independently and separately from one another. We study each experimental subject with the assumption that it is separate from other objects so we can conduct different experiments in different conditions and believe that we are studying an isolated, independent subject. At odds with this assumption is the observation of some twin quantum particles that have shown separated objects can and do remain in synchronization with each other across time and space … continuing to correlate their angles of spin with each other. This was first considered in the “Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox,” later verified in the laboratory, and mathematically demonstrated by Bell’s theorem.

Assumptions of material or physical monism and epiphenomenalism assert that subjective mental phenomena are simply epiphenomena of matter. In other words, the material world is the primary mover and shaker, and things we think we observe through our minds are irrelevant, “immaterial” inconsequential side effects. Quantum physics shows us the weakness of these assumptions when we consider how observers who take quantum measurements collapse quantum waves at the moment they make that observation.

Now that we know that the assumptions forming the basis for material realism are so shaken by findings of quantum physics experiments, it’s time to start refining and revising the above assumptions of material realism into assumptions that include mind along with matter, and that better agree with the findings of quantum physics.

 

Gotta Catch ’em All!

At this time when one of the more popular games is Pokemon Go, with people streaming into parks, cell phones in hand, hoping to see and capture Pokemon “pocket monsters,” people are playing a real-life game of finding possible samples of the Mandela Effect all around. Corporate logos often come up as possible Mandela Effect examples, providing excellent test cases by which to see if they pass the Mandela Effect Test. 

 

You can see the YouTube summary of this blog post here: https://youtu.be/HBCLYPiUwL8

 

___________________________

QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Reality Shifts and  Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including her Living the Quantum Dream radio show, the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at: http://www.RealityShifters.com
RealityShifters®

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: