“Biophotonic Resonator”, A Connecting Matrix (III)

Summary : How do Entropy and Information relate to each other/ Fields and waves are  not necessary to explain informational communication

Purpose : To have a new understanding of the laws of Information that explains why Information behaves very different than  energy and is not  just a modulation state of energy but the SOURCE and DESTINY of informational processes, named ENTROPY. Transformational energetic processes are not a dead-end-road that leads to total Chaos, but that complexifies our environment to a degree where our limited understanding perceives it as chaos only for chaos to be the source of new “degrees of freedom” that is the basis of DLE and thus energetic processes.

Dear Lucian

K: You say “Now information, the opposite of entropy, is a numeric measure of how complex the structure of the system is, weather we know it or not”

Here please listen and be open to the very revolutionary view of Kiran:

“Information is greater the higher the Entropy” . More Entropy simply means higher Complexity and from the point on where our knowledge cannot make out structure anymore we call it Chaos  which in my world view is simply a more complex information that means “Maximum Entropy = Max information content”

Professors are known to deal with more chaos in their environment not because they are more stupid but because they are more intelligent to see structures and order where others are no longer able to see them. We make the big mistake that we subjectively call something Entropy when we run out of ordering parameters that would be suitable to describe it.

Intelligence is usually tested by finding pattern in a complex succession of pattern… but why we have the silly idea that there is ever any limit in potentially finding pattern only because our most intelligent theories don’t provide one anymore. Entropy is not the absence of pattern but a very very complex one.

L: Info= log |Aut(System)| or  –log(probability) if normalized; it’s expectation value is Entropy=<Info>=- Sum p_i log(p_i), i.e. the density of information per character. It’s all Shannon’s Coding Theorems, since quantum interactions are quantum communications …

K: The 2 papers you send are just another version of what has been done since a hundred years to describe information transfer and possible not energy-based ways to make it possible. One simple idea that has escaped everyone to consider. “Information other than Energy is not bound by Space and Time and therefore any technical or theoretical methods to make communication  from A to B is not necessary  if the receiver is also based in the informational matrix morphological field” that means if he is also not bound by distance.

Please tell me why nobody considered the possibility that Space and Time are not necessarily binding  dimensions  for every aspect of existence. People like Einstein tried to bend time and tunnel through it and now impose some structure on it, why not even consider that Time is not a dimension for states of mind and consciousness. For example when I was in a coma I could space and time travel as I wished and this is the case also for psychics and for anyone at times.  Information is only in exceptional cases transmitted via Energy, most of nature communicates with each other instantaneously,  energy .

L: The Greeks discovered the atomic theory, but it’s useless without technology; just talking about what info is will not solve the problem.

K: You say “By now I guess: CoRe should contain a high-potential information-source (random number generator), a resonator (quartz or semiconductor and … a coil?), probably like any radio tuned to detect a zero-field vector potential, and … ?”

By now you could guess that there is no sending or receiving necessary because there is no field that has any distance-dimensions on the informational level. So no need for coils or any other sender based on energy physics.  You just look for repetitive pattern in the Chaos that is generated or better that is expressed by a random number generator. What you pick up is “Coincidences” that we know from using the CoRe are highly loaded with significance.

L: The so called “coincidences” are the result of a triple: emitter, channel and receiver (see again Shannon’s Theorems regarding the Theory of Information); such communications can be achieved without fields of force, but as any “change”, they involve a source and a target.

K: Can you describe a little of your current work ?

L: Modeling systems as automata processing both energy, matter and information-structure. It’s too much to be said here, material for my 3^rd volume of the Digital World Theory. The flavor and justifications can be found in my two books on The Digital World Theory (They’re technical, but you should browse them and read between the lines). Anyways, the Big Picture is starting to clarify; but there are too many concrete projects – which are a priority; we need results, not just “nice pictures”.

Regarding our discussions, I should point out that I am using the various terms like energy, information, potential etc. in the technical sense. For example, a local potential which you call potential energy, corresponds to a conservative force. The zero-field potentials I am talking about, represent a global structure, a substitute for “space”, but not as we imagine it in classical physics; rather with “holes” (homology), and having global attributes (i.e. non-local properties). Unfortunately many “points” of the discussions are lost in “translation”, from the technical level to the higher-level language of a specific practice. Give it time and the “dictionaries” start to crystallize, mediating the “application interface” and “technical implementation”.

As above so below "Chaos is not the end result of energetic processes but their Origin and Destiny

….. and what “the big boys at the top” and the “believers of the new world order” and the “imitating masonic” do not and did not know that the order they try to create will only be the raw material to be turned into  the a new and more sophisticated Chaos that they are not prepared to navigate….. and that is the natural result for all those who spend their life to control/ regulate/ enslave/ limit/ dominate to make the world save/ predictable/ stable while in at the base they are moved by fear-of-the-unpredictable…..

Dear Lucian

K: Max. Entropy – the state of max. informational content

…and minimum Potential/Energy:

Energy is measured by “its ability to do work” but it is defined by “that which does not diminish in transformation”.

Another word for energy is “potential” as all energies are based on the principle of “polarity”. Difference of polarity is providing a potential for work. That means without polarity there is no Energy.

L: Yes, energy is a “currency” of change, implemented through transfer of momentum, through “forces”. This mechanical picture is complemented by electromagnetism through a more subtle concept of vector potential B=Curl(A), in addition to the common electric potential E=grad(U).

The vector potential was thought to be just a convenient math tool, until experiments like Maxwell-Lodge and Aharonov-Bohm reviled that even a zero-field vector potential (B=curl(A)=0), can produce electrical field at a distance (Maxwell-Lodge effect), and a change in the probability of occurrence of quantum interference (“is the electron or not”, being the question). There are no “lines of force” in between the source of the vector potential (say a coil screened by a Faraday cage), but only “invisible and intangible” circles of vector potential. In a dynamic regime they can be modulated, becoming carriers of information without energy (!). They can be thought of as  the structure of space itself, a sort of fundamental morphic field (but not field strength, i.e. no energy-momentum carriers), a “blue-print” of potential effects materialized when a charge or a resonant devise is present to assume the role of receiver.

I advocated the duality between energy (as “bulk”) and information (as actual structure) and that quantum processes are exchanges of quantum information in DWT v.1 & Q++ (see http://www.virequest.com/VIReQuest_Projects.htm ), starting top-down from principles; but to see that others, independently, arrived at a concrete incarnation of the idea was a really satisfying moment (see Gerard Rousseax http://math.unice.fr/~rousseax/maxwell-lodge.htm, Chirkov and Agreev: http://www.springerlink.com/content/9×3wk14244432277/,

www.springerlink.com/content/b4m144116432v541/fulltext.pdf ).

Unfortunately they (and others) don’t have yet the “big picture”, opening the new “Infotronix Era” as I like to call it – it’s “just” a quantum computing up scaled version of electronics, but it can be done with light (rings a bell?).

It also fits quite well the portrait of dark matter, and dark energy; yet we know next to nothing about these “cosmological nightmares”. We do know, and even Maxwell new back then, that the vector potential is essential for the description of electromagnetism; it fits Feynman’s description of “real field” anyways (see Lecture Notes in Physics, p.?).

And it supports the morphogenesis theory of Rupert Sheldrake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake, coming from a totally different “direction”; yet not surprising: there is only one root …

K: As we discussed consciousness can be at least approximated by the definition that it is the opposite of matter which is defined by its inertia/momentum. That which has no inertia is pure consciousness.

L: Quite right! Let’s think of a computer – and they’re getting smarter by the minute … -, it is bulky (hardware), electrons and energy is flowing (so far a heater can do that!), but behold, it vibrates in a structured-hierarchic way (lots of software layers on top of a kernel operating system); now exponentiate, make it quantum, and add vector potentials which can couple force-effects non-locally (apparently), via global vector potentials … Luckily I’m not aware of what every other human is doing or experiencing, or am I, sometimes?

K: Taking the same approach to define information as the opposite (or complement if you wish) of energy then we can say :

“Pure information is that which has no polarity” (= no energy) and this of course is the definition of “max/pure entropy”

This is a truly new definition of information or of entropy and many exciting new possibilities can be learned from that :

L: Indeed; information is complementary to energy, the same way wave aspects are complementary to particle aspects, the celebrated wave-particle duality (complementarity principle etc.). Information was almost ignored in physics so far, people striving to experiment at higher-and-higher energies (LHC). The experimentalists instead were looking at low temperature solid state physics (I call it low-entropy physics, because obviously that’s the key issue); and many wonderful effects emerged (supraconductivity, expulsion of magnetic field from cooled conductors, granulation of space properties in type II superconductors, the so called Abrikosov’s lattice etc.).

Now information, the opposite of entropy, is a numeric measure of how complex the structure of the system is, weather we know it or not; but if we don’t, then the system becomes a source of information, and there is a difference of “information potential” between this source, and the receiver, say us. Then, “things” can start happening: information can  be transferred, or maybe the structure itself being imitated (monkey see monkey do?) … I don’t know yet! My belief is that if there is a good and successful way of doing it, Mother Nature found it first (She got a good had start J). So, when making “hypothesis” we should give Her credit and be optimistic …

K: As I described, information contains matter to the degree it has inertia. We know theories and religious gain information  momentum/inertia over time and this means that they increase in their matter content. We literally speak about “crystallized idea/theories/believes “.

L: I still tend to put matter as the basis for structure-information, but the theory of morphic field says matter fills the “blue-print”, … and if I’m not there to put matter… how does it get there? Could be a “fall” along the potential lines of the blue print … That’s why duality is good; you know: chicken or egg? The answer is … “Chicken and egg”; Yin and Yang etc.

K: Equally instructing is that information also contains energy to the degree it contains polarities. Polarity/energy we experience in its informational form as tension, as debate, as opposite thinking, of giving importance to some and none to other issues. The more our thoughts are loaded with these the more it is containing energy.

This way we also understand the old spiritual teaching that by being more neutral in once thinking, by reducing to give importance, by non-attachment we release/ create energy.

L: I would try to avoid “one contains the other”, since this does not stress how different the two are, and tends to subordinate. Like Yin and Yang, information and energy are different aspects and, probably, if unbalanced, too much of one without the other, are not productive/in harmony. Yes, there can be a vector potential with a zero-field-no energy; and ordinarily there is plenty of forces and energy flows without global potential (there is a technical distinction between the two: Hodge decomposition, or Helmholtz decomposition).

K: “Chaos/ Entropy is not the end-product/ lower state/ missing potential but the opposite, the state which is most saturated with information/ hologram/ the beginning/ the source of information that can itself be transformed into energy and thus the cycle can start again” .

L: Perfectly to the point! Determinism is “boring”; an unpredictable yet compatible partner we all seek. Information without a “key” (decoding scheme) can seem “chaos”; and the more I think, I don’t see any other cause for “chaos”: we just don’t hold the access key to interpret it … At this point, you (or the reader) can improvise better then I can, I’m sure; so I’ll stick with the bottom-up approach (science: up-up-and away J).

K: In conclusion: Energy-entropy=information potential- energy

L: Yes – although I prefer my own “recipe”:

Matter-Energy is a manifestation of Potential-Information.

L: Now, I think we know in principle how things work and why. Next time may be you introduce me to the “secrets” of what CORE, the hardware, is made of … By now I guess: it should contain a high-potential information-source (random number generator), a resonator (quartz or semiconductor and … a coil?), probably like any radio tuned to detect a zero-field vector potential, and … ?

PS: Now physicists have to decide what to add to the usual Lagrangian, whose action gets minimized. My guess is, not much: Lagrangian= Energy (T-U) – Entropy. When writing the Feynman path integral, entropy log |Aut(path)| gets in the denominator of the action exponential, as a symmetry factor (Of course, symmetry means: indeterminate, but beautiful!) .

And after we discuss the hardware, the tricky part is “What quantum software runs around us?” … the Living Matrix is the right direction (http://www.thelivingmatrixmovie.com/), but, as a scientist, I need to know how to isolate it, and then, to reverse engineer it!

KIRAN : We have to first realize that with respect to Information we are all beginners just as people only 200 years ago in respect to energy.  All of you know the experiments of sonic-bloom and others that just radiated fields with music and thus increased the yield but here as usual one would only follow that energy (sound) is the key. How about surrounding sprouts with beautiful pictures and see what this will do to their growth (of course each gardener knows that the beauty of his garden has an effect on its yield) also many people know that growing flowers next to edible plants increases the yield as well. We just need one study to show that Information like pictures or flowers increases the yield of sprouts for example under otherwise precisely equal conditions and you will be the originator of the new equation I=E*k (k a constant that has to be determined) and of course you will be as popular as Einstein, provided you have a tongue as beautiful as him.

Physics does not have any measures for beauty nor does it know that it contains potential energy in form of Information

LUCIAN : So, my “big picture” is based on the IE-duality: classical information as the Dynamical External Network of Quantum Gates modeling what we think as “independent and localized objects”, replacing the aberrant concept of continuum space-time, which processes Quantum Information as the qubit flow (mater and interactions). The main point is that the duality enables the conversion of QI (as internal degrees of freedom, from quantum registers) into external structure, and conversely.

Without having the details yet, I feel that this line of designing the theory is flexible enough to provide the basic language Q++ of Reality Design (Engineering reality, not just modeling it).
From the language to a full Operating System is a long way: here comes “Structure” into the picture; layers on top of other layers etc. and any Operating System has a CORE (kernel) which are usually inaccessible by IO-devices, as these are supposed to use drivers to communicate with the Kernel
(General Operational Dynamics )

KIRAN : Besides experiments with plants I think that computers are of course the best and so far completely unrecognized
experimental ground to show a direct transformation of Information into Energy. We all know thousands of examples where computers steel our energy particularly if the interface of a program (which is information) is not adapted to the user. And in all factories around the world computers control the processes and depending how well the program (information) is written save more or less energy. But the direct conversion of energy into Information has never been studied to my knowledge. How for example to investigate it the battery of a computer lasts longer if one does work with the CoRe-system rather than war-games. Experiments like this have never been attempted  although we can observe every day that what information we deal with either gives us energy or burns it.
LUCIAN : I’ll stop with my “picture”, and get back on your question – but one more thing: the best architecture of a computer, classic or quantum, implements the so called Dynamical Programming, where the hardware reconfigures itself in response (adaptive/resonance) to the request / specific software which needs to run on it. This “resonates” with both DLE and The Secret (“Your wish is my command” etc.).

KIRAN : I know the computer of the future will not work with YES/NO logic but with what is already now been worked with on experimental basis with so called FUZY-logic a logic that also allows for at least one or better several states in-betweens YES and NO. And again what do we have then ? Yes again it is a DLE state and that is the state that all semiconductors are based on anyway as they are not YES-NO-conductors but they are in a dynamically labile state that conducts/emits/decays energy based on other parameters that can never be predicted for the individual atom but only statistically for collectives of large number.

LUCIAN : The point is, how to move past speculations and theories? I am not patient enough to build the theory first! It’s enough if we have the main ideas and principles …
So, I am working on the math-phys foundations in parallel with my math academic research, but it will take some more time till the implementation will be ready. The key points:
1) PlanKiran : E=hf (energy <-> frequency), de Broglie: p=h k (momentum <-> wave length and direction); but this is mechanics – dead, as you say;
2) Lucian: Entropy = – k ln |Aut(System)|, generalizing the
Boltzmann-Shannon formula beyond thermodynamics, where Aut(System) means the automorphisms of the system, i.e. transformations preserving and thus defining the Structure!

KIRAN : This is the way we have to see how the concepts of matter and energy can be applied to Information. Entropy is just one, and how about the Inertia, Impulse, Density, Color, Transparence, Purity, Gravity, Mass, Volume a.s.o. because certainly we can also adapt these concepts rigidly (scientifically) to information as we do this already literally all the time when we talk about information in all its different forms.

LUCIAN :  The idea, as I see it, is that our conscience is classical, our subconscious is quantum and entangled with many other we’ve met or will meet (BTW I KNOW there time is NOT a physical dimension: see my article “On the Arrow of Time”, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4180 – I’ll explain another time if you are interested how entanglement works), and the subconscious can easily “read” the “us”, the conscious, but not the other way around, so we should build some “resonators” capable of non-demolishing quantum measurements …  Does CoRe
work as such a quantum output device?

KIRAN : Its very simple, our left brain works in the classical way where everything is connected only with one or few other things, the concepts that we associate with each other by being reasonable.  The right brain associates a much larger  number of ideas/concepts/things with each other maybe even an infinite number. This  is the “entangled” mode of “reasoning” and we usually call this creative/intuitive/network thinking. In children the right brain is still very much more alive and active then in adults as they have been brainwashed by our current left brain culture. The rise of autism is only the tip of the ice berg of this left brain culture as autistic children have almost lost the use of the right brain. They can learn languages much earlier as other, are exceedingly good in RIGHT spelling, are capable of keeping organizing even the most simple things for hours, like EXACTLY stacking up boxes BUT they are incapable of associating which is the ability of the right brain…. More about this in a separate post about AUTISM http://www.informationenergymedicine-academy.com/category/applications-and-testimonials/autism/ one of the many new 100 % informational diseases that are spreading because we don’t know how to deal with this onslaught of information and because we do not recognize the resulting diseases for what they are “informational diseases”.

Kind regards,
Lucian

Associate Professor, Illinois State University

www.ilstu.edu/~lmiones <http://www.ilstu.edu/%7Elmiones>

Dear All

I am very happy that Prof Lucian Imiones is showing his comiment and interest by many personal communications we had and which I will post here  as I know they are of great interest to all of you who want to have a glimps of the mathematical dimension of what we are dealing with in CoRe.Lucian is the brother of my friend Daniela from Rumania who already signed up with her husband and daugher for the APRIL AIM training here in Brazilhe will join us also as a presenter if his wife will join…..

I will start here with communications that have started at the beginning of this year which will prepare you for some new understanding that has developed since then which I feel have the potential to widly expand our wordview from the famous but limited concept of E=mc2

In this old equation the energy that is transfomed into the new information of the butterfly is missing

LUCIAN :  We both have similar “big pictures” regarding the Worlds, Inner and Outer, and recognize the primary role of information and structure for the complex systems whose well-being are our main concern.

That matter moves from here to there (Galileo, Newton and Einstein) it’s a start, which unfortunately made “us” too proud of our control on “matter”, forgetting the Greek philosophy “Know thyself”, and philosophy altogether …

KIRAN : Yes Einstein put really turned our believe in energy into a religion, on the cover page of the San Francisco chronicle last week I saw that if people been asked for the name of a scientist 43 % would say “Einstein”, 25% did not know any name of any scientist and the other 32 % named one of a dozen others. Einstein has certainly the rank of a “high priest”.

LUCIAN : Back to the point: a few years ago (2005) I realized that there is an obvious missing fundamental principle, stating the equivalence of matter-energy ( ala Einstein) and information; moreover general relativity includes space-time in
the LHS of the balance equation (which is a shadow of the corresponding conceptual duality between External and InternaLucian Energy-matter-space-time and Information-Structure (Info. as in Entropy is a measure of Symmetry which is Structure); see my article, if you have time: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1116 The Search for a New Equivalence Principle.

KIRAN : Yes, this so important, as Einstein did not at all have “Information” in any of his equation nor did any one before him. It just did not show as a factor although we know that it moves our world more than anything and is the factor that moves energy. The famous equation E=mc2 has to be complemented by an equation between Information and Energy.

What we do not realize it that matter is only transformed in very rare (at least in our environment) nuclear reaction into energy or out of  matter. Transformation of Information into Energy however is an almost moment to moment experience for each of us and it does not need atomic reactors.

LUCIAN : Now this is what I see in “Inergetix” starting from the name: the distinction between Energy (and all that) and Information, with the possibility to transform one into another (as in any true equivalence, like E=mc2).

KIRAN : To make a new formula I=Ec2 as popular as that of Einstein it needs just a few examples where we can measure a direct transformation of Information into Energy. And of course it needs a scientist to promote this new formula just as charismatic as Einstein.

LUCIAN : I distinguish three main levels of discussion: Philosophical, Science/Physics and Mathematical implementation, which is the most uninteresting, since, if one knows the language well, all that’s left is to have what to say, right? So equations don’t impress me, except as concise labels ideas.

KIRAN : Formula and equations are most impressive for the left brain as it gives the appearance of complete knowledge. However closed equations are in fact incapable to even describe how a universe would move and interact if it only  consisted of 3 planets (the famous 3 body problem) now consider how much less equations are capable to describe anything of a universe that consist not of 3 but of trillions of bodies. Remember Einstein did not come up with his famous formula E=mc2 by measuring anything but only through Thought-experiments at his desk and as far as I know nobody had ever actually measured the correctness of E=mc2 in detail.

LUCIAN : Now starting from the above idea/principle, I realized that in fact EVERYTHING IS INFORMATION, the tipping point of starting the Digital World Theory. The Building blocks of fermionic mater as well as bosonic fields ARE the QUBITS, i.e. the units of quantum information (a.k.a. spinors, or just plainly Yes and NO , at the same time, with various “colors” as weights: complex numbers; so reality as any sane person knows, is not black xor white, and tertium datur all-the-time … duality THE fundamental principle in science as in religion,
oriental philosophy etc.).

The Heim theory is a collection of breathtaking ideas about fundamental laws of physics proposed by the German scientist Burkhard Heim. The theory was further developed and refined by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser. Heim tried to unify quantum theory and general relativity. Heim became disabled when an explosives-handling accident at age 19 left him without hands and mostly deaf and blind.
His pioneering work concerning the 12-dimensional structure of the universe makes radionics more understandable.
According to Burkhard Heim, the four-dimensional visible world (dimens-ions d1 to d4) represents only the lower level of the universe. Higher we find d5 and d6 (the Energetic Stimulation Field (ESF)), d7 and d8 (the information fields) and finally d9 through d12, which Heim defines as GAB (Gott aleine bekannt – God only knows), because he couldn’t calculate the content of those last 4 dimensions.
The information levels explained by Burkhard Heim can be considered as huge storing spaces, full of possibilities amongst which those can be chosen which are necessary, and which are brought in the sixt dimension. The possibilities which will be materialised in the 4 basic dimensions are dependent of the degree of probability they are needed.

The fifth and sixth dimension are considered to be the organizational level, or also called the transformation levels. They are absolutely needed, because in the information levels there is no time and space. The transformation levels are necessary because non local, non polar information need to be transformed into local, polar structures.

Therefore the fifth and sixth dimension can be considered as structural levels.

d12

d11

d10
Informationspace
d 9

d 8 GIF, Global Information field

d 7
———————————————————————–
d 6 ECF, Energetic Control Field

d 5

d 4 Time
Energyspace
d 3
Visible world d 2 Matter

d 1

Each level contains dynamic properties of geometric structures, especially in the information levels. In this geometry we recognize the value of the symbols.
The Heim theory shows us a world of organisational structures that are under constant actualisation. Heim could prove that there would be no particles possible, if there would only be 4 dimensions. He proved physically that an electron already needs 6 dimensions to function properly.
The CoRe practitioner creates the direct link to GAB, and afterwards the communication and interaction with the information fields starts

The communication between the 3 dimensions we live in, the organisational levels d5 and d6, and of course the information fields d7 and d8, is done through d4, which is the time. Time therefore is an active force whose patterns contain information about every physical process in this world. This research gives time a key role in the communication between the information-space and matter.

The influence of time turns information into a material process and vice versa. This pattern is accessible everywhere in the universe, independent of space and time.

All these valuable assets are turned into practice by using the wonderful tool that CoRe is. It really brings us into contact with God and the divine. Thank you CoRe Inergetix

Kiran’s Reply

It is so telling that Heim  ”THOUGHT TO KNOW”  that the highest realm consist of 4 dimensions…. why not 3.5.6.7. or x

although he also said “GAB (Gott aleine bekannt – God only knows), because he couldn’t calculate the content”

so my simple question if he was not able to calculate the content…. why did he know it consists of 4 dimensions….

NOBODY questions this …. because Mathematics must be right!

But the old and new understanding that he helped to propel to some level of acceptance is the simple fact

that matter and energy is ruled by INFORMATION and that there is something above it that is even more fundamental

I don’t call it not GAB as Heim but the spiritual level….. not as impressive as GAB but it has more tradition and more association.

Same thing but older from the Indian Saint Meher Baba

This is a message from Mark in response to me sending him a demo report created by CoRe

together with my question:

“What do you need more to model mathematically the CoRe Process ? “

I think this exchange will be a very exciting new step in getting other sciences involved.

investigating what makes CoRe turn

Hi Kiran,

First, let me note that I know very little about your system, and I’d love
to learn it……

Here is my basic idea of the “Cause-and-effect model” of the process
you used to get your demo report.

1) You have got an intention to turn on your device to get an accurate
report for yourself. In addition to the conscious intention you may have
also had some other unconscious intentions.

2) You opened to, what i call, the EI (energy-informational) domain (which
is mostly, outside of our TS (time-space) domain) and, by the resonance of
the totality of your intentions with some EI domain representations of the
items in your database of human issues.

3) You then got your report which is a materialization in the TS domain of
those resonant items from the EI domain.

And this is all.
Do you understand, what i am attempting to communicate to you?

What I am suggesting to you is to examine the process 1) – 3) in detail,
using some good examples, to become aware of all the details which you
perceive have resulted in the outcome – i.e. your report. And then design
the theoretical model, using questions like: “What minimal assumptions about
the nature of reality do we need to make in order for the observed result to
be possible in the Cause-and-effect” framework?”

I believe, this is the correct methodological approach to uncover the
relevant “Cause-and-effect’ relationships. I perceive, this may lead to
improvement of your system. But  I cannot promise you this…

I want to collaborate on this with Adriana (and I do not know yet is she
wants or not), because it is my perception that she has mastery of this
“resonance”. Here is a quote of her private email to me:

“…any intention that we have that does not come into manifestation… it
is because somehow we are self-sabotaging it…”

Ease, Joy and Glory as always,
Mark.

P.S. I have a preliminary hypothesis about the role of random mechanisms
here, but I am not ready to talk about it at this point.

NOTE by KIRAN :

And here you are all requested to send in your comments on what you feel goes into a successful CoRe evaluation and therapy …… look deeply into your practical experience and let us know so we can all learn

Oracle of Today

Mark wrote in a private message to me :

“M: Any conceptualization is a construction of a model. And one either does this consciously or by default, which would typically include unsupported assumptions, and unquestioned beliefs… My understanding is that you are actually imposing on reality a very rigid and extremely reductionist model: the “statistical” method, without presenting any critical analysis/justification. Granted, you have successful results using “statistical” method. But there is a huge leap of faith from your empirical evidence to your theoretical model. In fact, you do not seem to be even aware that you have got “a model”!”

My response :

Yes agreed “conceptualization is a construction of a Model” but I dont think to use a mathematical method like Statistics is implying a “model”….. you can add 2 and 2 without having a model about what these 2 stand for….

but you are right on a deeper level using any kind of tool of the mind like mathematics implies a certain concept for example even in this most simple example that there are countable things.

The Statistical method implies that you can make an “unbiased representative selection” and use it to make statements about the whole.

Dear Mark here is my question to you “Why do you think the statistical method would make  a “reductionist” implication?

Statics implies only that you can count and that you can make some kind of average, CoRe is even more general as that it does not follow common statistic methods but only searches for repeating pattern in a pool of data without any assumption how this data is formed in exactly the way it is…..

furthermore the repeating pattern that are found, which I call informational Resonances, dont get any interpretation, or at least don’t need any interpretation in order to be effective healing information.

So “reductionistic” means for me that you make something more simple than it is for example :

Reductionist approach to a duck

2. Question “Dear Mark what does Reductionist mean for you and how does this apply to statistics”

Insurance companies use Statistics all the time to make predictions and they dont have to assume that for example :

1. The future is fixed

2. Humans behave like sheep and thus are predictable

3. Consciousness does not exist ….. all is just a clockwork

and still there results are useful and they can make a lot of money on it plus they can be useful in making people aware on which  life-style factors possibly have an influence on important things like for example “your life expectancy”

the same is true for CoRe results…… however just like insurance results they dont give a reason why things and people are predictable.

Representative cross section in Statistics

Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics exactly for that reason because it is basically “Statistics” and does not fit into his “Clock work” idea of the world and he said “Quantum mechanics is not a science ” WHY ? “Because it cannot make definite predictions for individuals” which is the ideal for everyone that has a “clock work” idea of creation.

In a private message Mark wrote the following :

“I am specifically interested in developing models of mechanisms of how things work: to uncover relevant (logical) structures as well as cause-and-effect relationships”

Yes is the usual way we have been trained to look at anything in our world for example with respect to our client we are commonly not seeing the person or thing itself but we see its idea, Model, concept as a thought…. And after some time we even take this model/ thought as reality.

This is the function of the left brain and Hahnemann the founder of Homeopathy made a lifelong war against it as he said that this is always an abstraction that would most of the time mislead us.

Today when a modern medicine doctor is seeing a client he is not seeing the totality of the person but he is seeing “a case of the xxx-disease”.

When a chinese doctor is seeing a client he is also not seeing the person from all sided but he is seeing “the imbalances of the 5 elements” …. An Ajurvedic practitioner is considers “the imbalance of the vata, pita, kapha” as the cause of all that he is seeing .

Hahnemann introduced a new method in that he would only make a collection of symptoms and compare them to a repertory of remedy proofings and he would consider as that substance that had shown the greatest number of matching symptoms in its proofings to be the most indicated remedy. So he made a clear cut with all the previous medical systems that were based on assuming some model for example “an imbalance of humors”. He did not stay completely pure with this approach to the end as he also introduced abstract concepts like that of the Miasms, but this was always secondary to the simple matching of symptoms approach.

In CoRe we continue this approach by simply saying that objects that create a high value resonance in the CoRe evaluation are significant for the client, although we don’t have any model or theory why this might be the case …. Although for the more intuitive (right brain) therapist it is often obvious.

In my seminars I even make clear that a forced attempt to see logical connections between results and what we perceive about the situation of the client is counter-productive as it often creates more doubt on the part of the practitioner and/or client that transports you in an informational tunnel where neither sending nor receiving is possible.

“ Believe is not necessary for CoRe to work but experience shows that doubt makes it less effective. “

Practitioners who work with another informational modality know that generally it is easier to treat children and animals, who do neither believe nor doubt homeopathy but more difficult for older people who generally have the tendency to “doubt what they don’t understand or what they are not used to”.

Having said this, I am certain that the Left Brain is not just an obstacle or a mistake of nature but it is another example of a mechanism that has been created to provide polarity and thus the possibility for DLE…. however it is seeing only the top of the iceberg :

Visible and invisible connections

However I don’t think that any “mechanistic” or “cause and effect” models have any future, but I am grateful to Mark that he pointed out that the idea that “everything is connected to everything “ is also a model which needs to be examined.

As we are going to also include left-brain-functionality in a next CoRe update I have researched many possible models for this that I consider a suitable basis …. I will present those in a next post.

For now I want to ask you for suggestions which models of disease and healing you found to work well together with CoRe.

Mark’s approach (based on the unfinished manuscript with Stephan Schwartz).

“Mathematician is the one who can see analogies. A good mathematician is the one who can see analogies between analogies.” – a folks saying.

1. Motivation: before doing any formalization, need proper conceptualization!

Aristotle’s mechanics was very complicated and obscure. After Newton discovered a proper conceptualization, he introduced his formalization: his 3 laws, + the gravitation law. And mechanics became very simple.

Similarly, Ptolemy’s model for planet’s movement was very complicated and obscure. After Copernicus and Galileo discovered a proper conceptualization, a simple formalization was introduced.

Scientific models are mechanistic and reductionist. They assume the causality principle, use standard logic, and are, typically, based on high quality reproducible experimental data. And these models typically offer a plausible mechanism to account for the data. They basically follow the Cartesian analytic method, the view of scientific explanation as decomposing the problem into simple parts to be considered individually, which could then be re-assembled to yield an understanding of the integrated whole. Mathematical models are a special case of Scientific models.

Holistic models are non-reductionist. They implicitly assume the thesis that a whole is more than a mere aggregation of its parts. They rely upon the method of intuition and direct experience, rather than rational explanation or empirical experiment, satisfied with a non-rational apprehension of un-analyzed whole.

· Is it possible to use our standard scientific method to develop models that account for the reality captured by the second “non-scientific” holistic models?

· Does there exist high quality reproducible experimental data that would allow one to start developing a unified theoretical model?

· What would be an appropriate scientific methodology which would allow one to start developing such a unified theoretical model?

Kiran : We have to re-think all the definitions also of so called “Holistic models” as they have been repeated without thinking for too long. For example the over and over told concept “a whole is more than a mere aggregation of its parts”… for example applying this concept to a HUMAN makes the unquestioned and unrealized assumption that “a human” is “a whole” but really once you define “a whole” separate from the “All and everything” then you are actually not a holistic thinker. That “The whole is more than its parts”… is actually NONSENSE as of course “The whole is exactly the totality of its parts… and not one thing more” but what we want to say is that

“The whole is more than what we think its contributing parts are”.

Kiran : We are confused and do not get one step further in all the “hard” science that has been done since so long because we start from the wrong end “We assume we are one and individual and separated from other beings and objects and we do make scientific experiments to see if there is a connection other than physical and energetic connections” but in fact we have to go the other way round

“To assume there is a connection of everything and we can find ways to assess the degree of connection of every part”

this is what I call resonance and that is done with the CoRe system.

K: This approach is not satisfying to the mind that wants to have “hard and clean” data as all is soft and intermingled and mechanical interaction is the exception and not the rule…. But all our concepts of “knowing how something works” is “mechanistic”.

K: The way out is not to hope for “models” but to built and expand our world-experience based on statistical experiences which means to know for example “if 100 people go to Mac Donald frequently” 60 of them will have serious health problems in 5 years. To give up the hope for a model that would explain “Why they get sick” and “Why the other 40 stay healthy”.

K: In fact “Models” will be a concept of the past as we see their limitation and their great potential to mislead the majority of people …. As most don’t see the inbuilt limitations of a Model…. Its “definition range” and this has fooled not only common people but also most physicist.

K: The “statistical” approach is the way we learn most things anyway like “to look in the rear-mirror when changing lanes” we don’t need a model to understand its value. We grasp the “statistical” method with the right brain that is seeing the totality or at least a much larger scope and is perceiving degrees of importance rather than individual causes.

K: Certainly all the remote viewing and other experiments of “psychic” effects don’t interest me at all because “Those who know need no prove and those who cannot know will not be convinced by any proof”

K: What interests me is to improve the CoRe as a tool that helps us to see the influences at a given moment that left unnoticed would force nature to cause disease or tragedy to make us aware of them.

K: But Mark please tell me what you mean with your initial

Proverb A good mathematician is the one who can see analogies between analogies. as this is the direction I want this discussion to go.

M: My perception is that Kiran is actually talking here about the “the causality principle”, and his implication appears to be that the standard scientific (=the mechanistic and reductionist) causality principle (i.e. the Cartesian analytic method) is not applicable here. Did I get it right?

K: As far as I know Descartes did not invent the “causality principle” it is as old as humanity. But there are several assumptions about “Causality” that are common but not justified, and that have limited our view for centuries. First cause and effect have not necessarily be ordered by the dimension of time. Second the cause for a material or energetic change does not necessarily have to be matter or energy but can be information or consciousness. Third there it is only an assumption that a matter or energy change requires a physical/direct/local contact of either energy or.

K: But the main mistake that turns an explanation/theory into a “mechanistic and reductionist” one is not that it follows one of the above 3 non-proven assumption but the idea that any ONE thing could be called a “Cause”. In a holistic world view “Everything is connected with Everything” and therefore even calling a limited number of facts a “Cause” is not appropriate , as ALL is a consequence of ALL. Mathematically speaking the modeling of the Cause-Space has to be a Hilbert-Space that allows to relate an infinite number of causes to an effect….please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space.

M: My perception is that Kiran is actually talking here about the “the causality principle”, and his implication appears to be that the standard scientific (=the mechanistic and reductionist) causality principle (i.e. the Cartesian analytic method) is not applicable here. Did I get it right?

K: As far as I know Descartes did not invent the “causality principle” it is as old as humanity. But there are several assumptions about “Causality” that are common but not justified, and that have limited our view for centuries. First cause and effect have not necessarily be ordered by the dimension of time. Second the cause for a material or energetic change does not necessarily have to be matter or energy but can be information or consciousness. Third there it is only an assumption that a matter or energy change requires a physical/direct/local contact of either energy or.

K: But the main mistake that turns an explanation/theory into a “mechanistic and reductionist” one is not that it follows one of the above 3 non-proven assumption but the idea that any ONE thing could be called a “Cause”. In a holistic world view “Everything is connected with Everything” and therefore even calling a limited number of facts a “Cause” is not appropriate , as ALL is a consequence of ALL. Mathematically speaking the modeling of the Cause-Space has to be a Hilbert-Space that allows to relate an infinite number of causes to an effect….please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space.

Dear All

this new category will be dedicated to researching the mathematical aspects of the CoRe system and

I am very fortunate to having attracted the interest of two very special Professors of Mathematics

1.Prof Lucian Imiones who is Associate Professor, Illinois State University for mathematics and computer science

2. Mark Friedman Prof. of  Mathematics at the University of Alabama www.math.uah.edu/friedman

First I want to welcome Mark and say that I am very pleased and proud that a  scientist of his caliber is interested in what we are doing. He is Prof. of  Mathematics at the University of Alabama www.math.uah.edu/friedman.
I have seen his curriculum vitae and he might be the right person to put all  this new science in the language of Math and I will soon start here to publish  my talk with him and Lucian also Math professor

MARK (M) is saying :
M: In order to “diagnose” a problem, one needs to have a theoretical model of  how human organism functions.

K: I dont think so because this starts out with the assumption that disease come  from the organism functions and I say this is like checking in a Computer  hardware for software bugs.

M: “diagnose” is useful if one can connect it to “a treatment” =  “solution of the problem”.

K: I agree completely and this is why all my work is directed at giving options  for Solutions and not ABOUT FINDING PROBLEMS this very attempt creates more  problems than it solves (Law of Attraction)

M: My understanding is that CoRe only matches a “problem” to “a  solution”, which does not require any theoretical model. Is this correct or not?

K: Yes this is correct and all practical people know that you can work without  most theoretical models and CoRe is an great example for that.

M: An alternative approach would be to look for a “cause” or a “root  cause” of the “problem”, and then treat the “root cause”. And of course the  notion of the “cause” or “root cause” would depend on one’s theoretical model  of dynamics of development of a disease in human organism.

K: Not only that the cause that you find as you say depends on your model but  more importantly the very idea of ONE or a limited number of CAUSES is limiting  your results as it is based on a LINEAR or QUASI-LINEAR approach of seeing  connections and as all holistic practitioners know more or less we are connected  with everything and herefore also influenced by everything.

TO understand this needs true network thinking which is the work of the right brain or a mechanism like the CoRe uses ….. and results of course will always look like “random” to the left brain and despite the fact that we thought we are
so open minded…. in this respect most are in the situation like in 1895 where somebody had to walk in front of the first automobile in the city where I was born Stuttgart because the administation was sure it was too dangerous to drive
without horses at a neck breaking speed of 10 miles per hour;

this is the situation we are in with CoRe…. for some it raise a RED FLAG and others KNOW it will transport us to new shores very soon.

Kiran

K: Being trained as a physicist and studying and practicing Homeopathy in India for 5 years I knew that Homeopathy was not a new form of energy no matter how subtle because it simply did not obey the definition of energy which is the first law/ definition of physics : “That quality that does not diminish in transformation is what we call energy” so in fact the energy-conservation law is not a law but a definition.

K: However Homeopathic remedies can be multiplied simply by adding a drop to any amount of substrate and here I knew it was really like a fermentation process or simply an informational copying process different from any energy and matter process that diminishes in density by distribution whereas Homeopathy does not.

M: It appears to me that we encounter here a ‘high level’ regulating mechanism (a black box) operating by yet unknown principles, where ‘relevant’, ‘low energy’ information produces significant results. And we have here both, information and energy.

Read the rest of this entry »