Immortal Death

Choices Cover 03I watched an episode of Through the Wormhole the other night. It was about different types of scientists who were (desperately) working toward finding a way to make people immortal. Some biologists were busy studying creatures that had lifespans that lasted hundreds of years; while other bio-specialists were busy mucking around with DNA and genomes in an attempt to ensure that all future children would be ‘perfect’ (and who defines what is perfect?). Still other scientists were busy seeking a way to create a non-biological or only partial biological body that could house our brains/souls so that we would never have to worry about sickness or death again.

Yet, no one ever explained why this is so important. Why would someone want to live forever? Are most people so afraid of dying that they would prefer becoming some sort of robot? Unfortunately, whenever I think of a world full of immortal people, I become very frightened. To me, it would be a curse to have to live for hundreds of years. People rarely change. They form opinions, habits, preconceptions, and ideologies and seldom do they allow these ingrained mindsets to shift. So, do you really want to see what happens to the world when someone like Hitler (or Trump), who is afraid of everyone and everything, lives forever?

And if that thought doesn’t scare you, how about all the overcrowding and lack of natural resources that would occur when people stop dying? Talk about a dystopian world. Nothing but blighted cities, with polluted air too foul to breathe, no viable drinking water, and food…yeah, let’s all take our protein pill.

Rather than wasting our time and resources on trying to make people immortal, I think we would do better as a species to spend some time trying to help planet Earth cope with the load of humans she already carries. I also think we should spend more time recognizing and coping with the fact that death is real. It’s not going away and it’s not something to be feared. Death isn’t the end of everything. It isn’t a permanent ‘dirt nap’ or a ‘deep dark hole of nothingness.’ It is simply the end of one physical existence and the continuation of life. Your sentience, the awareness that comprises your true being isn’t limited by the container you call your body. That is simply a conveyance, a method of operating and participating in the physical world.

Just because one body fails doesn’t mean your life is over. Your life as Sam or Jessica is over, yes, but you pick another life, another set of parents, another body, and you start again. Now, you can try out some other options. Maybe as Sam/Jessica you didn’t like the way things worked out in terms of your romantic life. Okay, now as Joe/Abby you can try some different options and see if those romances work out the way you want them to.

But the best part is that when you pick up this new body, you also lose many of the old preconceptions and prejudices that you had. It’s a whole new fresh start. Talk about a science lab. Physical life is just one big classroom where you can study biology, sociology, psychology, mathematics, physics, zoology and every other type of science there is. And if science isn’t your thing, then you can focus on music, art, drama, or medicine.

So, instead of trying to be immortal, maybe we should think about what we want to do next. After all, death is just another step in that long road we call life. It’s nothing to be afraid of, I know…I’ve been to the other side, and I’ve come back. It’s different, but different doesn’t have to be scary.  Psychopomp 3D - DLS - 8pxls - 2

Still True Today

I’ve been reading some books (old and new) on quantum physics and quantum mechanics, and I was fascinated by the discussions regarding probability waves. Back in the late 1700’s a scientist named Thomas Young (1773-1829) conducted an experiment, that was soon repeated by other physicists and is even now repeated in schools as a training tool.

The experiment goes like this:


He created a black box that had a back wall of light-sensitive materials and contained just two small holes at the front to allow light in. He removed the covering over the two small holes and let the light go into the box. Then, when he later opened the box, he saw that instead of the two bars that he was expecting when the light entered the two holes, there were 4. Curious, he increased the holes to 3. Instead of getting six bars, though, he found that he had 5 bars. Even more curious, he made 4 holes, but this time the number of bars actually decreased. His conclusion was that the light traveled in waves and the waves interfered with each other, thus creating the “irregular” patterns of light bars in his results.

This conclusion held for many decades. Scientists would draw wave patterns to demonstrate how they interfered with one another, and used mathematics to “prove” this conclusion. Then, other physicists came along that questioned this wave theory. After all, they had calculations to show that light wasn’t a wave, it was a particle. Therefore, the interference patterns shouldn’t be occurring the way everyone assumed.

To test their theory of particles, they devised a way to allow a single photon through the hole and into the black box. To determine that just one photon got through, they set up monitors on the back side of each pin hole. That way, they would know that only one photon was being released and which hole it was going through. This was because they deduced that if one photon went through at a time, then there was no way it could interfere with itself, and that would mean that there would be no interference patterns, thereby disproving the waves theory and proving that light (and energy) traveled as particles (see Figure 2).


What they discovered was that the photon seemed to travel in a wave-like pattern until it passed the monitor. Once detected, the photon traveled as a particle until colliding with the back wall. This wave-to-particle motion became known as probability waves. That is, photons (and all sub-atomic and atomic particles—all energy) create waves of probabilities until a determination is made.

Once that determination is made, they select one of the probabilities and make it a reality. If the photon is detected, it selects the probability of this reality and the path on which it was detected. If the photon is not detected, then it is free to select this reality or any other. So, until a choice is made, all possibilities exist. However, even though a decision is made, the other possibilities don’t just go away, they also become reality, just not in our world.

Can you understand why I find this so fascinating? Basically, quantum physics is expressing the philosophy of choice (albeit in a manner more acceptable to those who are more logic and mathematically based).

For example, let’s go back to the photon. We release a photon and it’s traveling in a wave-like way. We decide to detect it, so now it exists in our reality, but the other wave (the one not being detected) doesn’t just fade away, after all, energy doesn’t disappear, it merely takes on another form. (Energy is a constant.) Instead, the remaining wave(s) simply enters a reality where the photon wasn’t detected. By following this idea, we see a more balanced reality, a more balanced world. It also fits with the basic principal of an equal, and opposite reaction. If we chose not to detect the photon, then the photon would no longer exist in our reality, but would, instead, be in a reality where it was detected.

So, every time you make a choice, that unselected choice doesn’t simply fade away, it becomes a separate bubble of reality, a separate and opposing energy loop. It may only last for a moment, or it may last for many years, creating its own branches and its own parallel realities, it all depends on the size of the choice. If the choice is something small with little impact on your life and your world, then the bubble will most likely be small and may resolve itself quickly, returning back to the originator of the probability wave (you). On the other hand, if it’s something large, with a lot of impact on your life, then it may last decades (perhaps even the entire life).

Let’s say you decide to watch a televised sitcom instead of reading a book one night. That’s not a big choice, and may have very little impact on your life. Therefore, this little bubble wherein you read your book instead of watching the sitcom, may only last for the night, or for a couple of days, before merging back into your reality. Now let’s say that your fiancé just asked you to marry him. That’s a choice that will make a large impact on your life. In this case, whichever choice you don’t take, will most likely endure throughout the entire life of the alternate you.

If you decide to marry, then your alternate is going to say no. This alternate life then will be far different than the one you will be living, and the two may not merge until one or both of you die.

Because of the impact of this decision, each alternate reality will continue to create other alternates with the various decisions that come up. The reality where you married may bring choices of kids or no kids, career choices, and others, while the reality where you didn’t marry, may bring other marriage proposals, other opportunities perhaps to travel, or for career. Each of these will result in a large impact, which will result in even more alternates.

Whew, confusing isn’t it, trying to imagine all those realities? But as you try to wrap your mind around it, can you see how this fits with the concept of imbalance seeking to restore itself to balance?

The concept of imbalance seeking to become balanced isn’t new, and it isn’t just from the philosophy of choice. Scientists have talked about it for a long time, and this simply adds another rock to the foundation of its truth.

If a choice results in a probability wave containing two options, and only one is selected, then if that second option simply fades away, it would make our world very imbalanced. But, if another reality were created in which that option also became a reality (the rules of duality applying here), then that would create a balance between both of our worlds/realities. And when the two realities merged back together, that would simply consolidate the balance into one source again.

According to both science and philosophy, no energy is lost, no decision is left unexperienced, because all possibilities exist Somewhere.

It’s fascinating reading some of these books on quantum physics and realizing just how much they echo some of the more current philosophies and metaphysical ideas of our times.


A review of “The City of God: Transgressions”

cityofgod_bookcover“The City of God: Transgressions” by R.S. Ingermanson

Summary: Can history be changed? Three people are about to find out.

It’s A.D. 57 when Rivka Meyers walks out of the wormhole into a world she’s only studied in books. Ancient Jerusalem is awesome! Rivka can’t believe her friend Ari Kazan’s theory actually worked. But when she runs into Ari’s whacko colleague, Damien West, in the Temple, Rivka starts to smell a rat.

When Ari discovers that Damien and Rivka have gone through a wormhole that’s on the edge of collapse, he has to make a horrible choice: Follow them and risk never coming back — or lose the woman of his dreams forever

Recommendation: Yes


I love stories about history and time travel and this book covered both points quite well. While the science portion of the book wasn’t integrated as smoothly as I would have liked, it was expressed well enough to convince me that the premise of the story was possible.

I also wasn’t enamored with Ari, who was rather narrow in his outlook and beliefs. However, I realized that if I was wondering why Ari couldn’t be a bit more liberal, then the author had done a good job of creating this character. After all, we don’t get aggravated with characters that don’t seem real to us, do we?

Overall, I was quite pleased with this story. It had a strong female lead, which I found rather refreshing. She was, in many ways, very self-sufficient, yet her surroundings were so different from what she was used to that it led her to have to rely on others. However, her reliance wasn’t as a damsel in distress, but more of someone seeking directions in a strange, new land. And it was strange and new, even though it was also part of her past.

The small moment in history that the author chose to explore was one I had never given much thought to, and I was intrigued by his examination of it. I found his projection of the possibilities that could be spawned based on how this moment played out, compelling and interesting. It was a juxtaposition of Judaism and Christianity; the point at which Christianity could become unrealized or it could become what it has…one of the leading religions in the world. Given the backgrounds and biases of his main characters, it was the perfect backdrop. Would they help or hurt the outcome of history? Would their interference (unintentional or deliberate) skew our world into one totally different from what we know, or would they only be fulfilling what history had already said had happened?

Find out for yourself. Read the book…it’s really a great way to spend a weekend.



Yes, but with a caution

ms-hsMindspeak/Heartspeak by Sandy Nathan

Summary: Dr. Clarisse Hull is a brilliant theoretical physicist living in a world of schemes and hidden peril. Her revolutionary research manages to prove the existence of alternative universes, and she uses Quantum Physics to create portals in time space, which lead to other worlds. Unfortunately, she can’t present the core of her work, which is classified as Top Secret and owned by the government, just like herself. This is because Clarisse is a secret black ops agent, and has been one all of her adult life.

Clarisse’s university doesn’t believe her claims and ends up denying her tenure and firing her. However, the denizens of the alternate reality she reached do recognize her achievement, and they grab her up faster than you can say, “lead our army and take over planet Earth.”

Now Clarisse finds herself captive in an alternative universe, desperately searching for her way home from a sadistic empire across sub-molecular frontiers. She must save herself, in order to save everyone on Earth. Along the way she will encounter breathtaking adventure and hideous betrayal, but also find the love of her life.

Recommend: Yes, but with a caveat (see review below)

Review: The writing is crisp, brilliant, and…blunt. There is nothing soft, warm, or fuzzy about Ms. Nathan’s writing or her characters, and hence, my problem. The author’s writing was well-paced, clear and easy-to-read; the topic was something I always enjoy (alternate realities and time travel are my favorites, especially when the author uses current scientific theories to create a bridge from the world of here-and-now to their world of what-if). However, the problem (for me) was that I was unable to relate to any of her characters. And they are excellently developed, well-thought out, and absolutely believable characters. But therein lies the problem.

Her characters were more prone to use violence to resolve issues, while I’m more comfortable using persuasion and dialogue. Her characters were rather cold and shut off (think Spock from Star Trek), which made it hard for me to empathize with their predicament.

I do not find this a flaw in the book, the writing, or of the author. I find this to be my issue…The characters in this book were great representations of a particular type of person; unfortunately, these are also the type of people I would probably avoid in the real world, simply because we have little to nothing in common.

So, while I do recommend this book for its excellent writing, exceptional concept, and very real characters, do be aware that these characters are not the warm and fuzzy-type of characters that most authors create. Also, understand that these characters primarily tend to use violence in dealing with their situations.

A Spider Web of ‘Ifs’

web of dew drops 4889All my life I’ve wondered about the paths not taken. What would our world be like if we’d lost the Revolutionary War? What if the Wright brothers had never invented the airplane…would someone else have done it, or would our world be stuck to the ground?

What would my personal reality be like if I had been born male instead of female? What if I hadn’t married, or had married someone else?  

The other day I was reading a book by Andre Norton (Star Gate) written in 1958, and she had a section that stated the same ideas, only much more elegantly than I could ever do:

“History is not only a collection of facts; it is a spider’s web of ‘ifs’. If Napoleon had not lost the Battle of Waterloo, if the American colonies had lost the Revolution, if the South had won the Civil War…the procession of ifs is endless, exciting the imagination and spurring endless speculation. Sometimes the all-important turning point can be compressed into a single small action—the death of one man, or a seemingly casual decision.

And if the larger history of a nation, or a world, depends upon so many change ifs, so also does the personal history of each of us. Because we are five minutes late or ten minutes early for an appointment, because we catch one bus but miss another, our life is completely changed.

There exists a fascinating theory that at least two worlds branch from every bit of destiny action. Hence, there are far-reaching bands of parallel worlds, born of many historical choices…”

But are parallel worlds only created when national or world-wide events occur, which could result in multiple responses, or are there multiple worlds based on an individual’s choices, too? And if each of us and our choices spawn parallel worlds, are those personal worlds only available to the individual who created it, or are they open to everyone?

Today scientists are not only embracing the theory of multiple worlds, but they are striving to prove that these worlds exist. Some picture the parallel worlds as layers stacked on top of each other, while others say they resemble soap bubbles with the larger bubbles (or world and national parallel worlds) linked together by smaller bubbles (the individual’s parallel worlds that we all create for ourselves).

I’m not sure what form the parallel worlds take—layers or bubbles—but I do find it interesting that what writers have posited for and written about for decades is now suddenly becoming a “reality”…at least in this world.

I see you…

Can people really view objects, locations, and people from a distance (remote viewing), or allow part of themselves to travel away from their body to some other place (out of body experiences)? The American and Russian governments believe so (Stargate was a real project within the US military and it was geared toward finding, training, and using people with these talents). And now, finally, the scientists are coming around to believing this, too.

Studies of the mind have identified a particular region of the brain associated with spatial recognition. In other words, there is a part of your brain that helps you fix yourself within a specific time and space; it keeps you within a specific reality. However, some people have the ability to control that aspect of their brain, to turn it off and on at will.

With it turned off, a person is no longer situated just where their body is. Instead, a part of them (let’s call it their awareness) is able to expand outward to any given coordinates whether on Earth or in space. These people have given accurate reports as to what they saw, heard, and experienced, yet their bodies never left the researcher’s sight. A rare few of these “travelers” or “viewers” have even been able to sense emotions of those in the target area, and some have reported being able to actually touch people and things in the target area (confirmed by contacting the target people who said they felt a push or hug during the experiment).

These studies have used MRI’s and brain scans during the travel and viewing experiments, which have shown the parts of the brains that were triggered. Each time the participant claimed to have launched themselves free of their bodies, the spatial recognition area of their brains has been shut down, and it didn’t come back on until the participants were “back”. During their travels, various other portions of the mind triggered, such as the visual cortex, even though the physical body had its eyes closed. All of which, the scientists claim shows that something real is happening and that while the body remains fixed in place, the mind (and perhaps more than the mind) has traveled somewhere else.

However, other scientists have shown that the brain can be fooled. By having the participants wear virtual reality goggles, these scientists have shown that substitute bodies (such as mannequins) can be used to fool the participants into believing what they’re not really experiencing. Scientists have positioned mannequins or other false body parts (arms or legs) in such a way that when the participants with the goggles see them being poked or swatted, they reach for their own stomach, arm, leg or body area and state that they felt the swat, poke, or prod. Yet, the scientists never touched the actual participant.

But fooling the brain into thinking that another [fake] body is your own body isn’t the same as actually describing a location across the globe that you’ve never been to. We all know that the brain is not infallible. It’s only as good as the input it receives. If presented with a perspective that the brain cannot quite understand, the brain will supply answers based on past experience and current input. That may not be accurate, but it’s the only data the brain has, so that’s what it goes with.

Unfortunately, this does affect the results of any remote viewing or out of body experience. What you see when you “travel” may not be something you can easily comprehend, it may not be visually clear (almost everyone who remote views or who steps out of body, claims that their vision becomes foggy or cloudy—maybe because we’re no longer using our physical eyes and senses to see a physical world), and it has to travel through our own personal filters (prejudices and beliefs). Therefore, while I believe it’s possible, it’s also not always easy to explain or quantify. It’s like everything else in this world…uniquely personal and individually distinctive.

Because I was told to…

Would you do it? Would you push the button to give someone a shock just because a [supposed] doctor told you it would do no harm even though you felt it was wrong?

The TV show, Curiosity asked that same question, and then went on to illustrate their results. The originator of the question, though, was Stanley Milgram of the Stanley Milgram experiment back in the 1960’s. The Milgram experiment asks the question, “How willing are you to obey an authority figure who has instructed you to perform acts that conflict with your personal conscience?”

The answer may surprise you. I know it did me when I saw the outcome on Curiosity.

Here’s the set up: You and the “student” (usually someone in on the experiment) are instructed by the “doctor” (who is also in on things) as to how the process works. The “student” is placed in a sealed room with electrodes attached to them, while you (the teacher) are to give them word pairs to memorize via voice communications only. If, when you ask them to recite the pairings back to you, they get any of the pairings wrong, you give the “student” shocks of increasing voltage. Also, you’ve been informed (usually by the “student” when you met them) that the student has a slight heart condition, but the “doctor” assures everyone that this shouldn’t matter.

Here’s the reality: everyone except those acting as “teachers” is in on the “experiment”. No one is actually connected to any electrodes, so no one is being zapped; no one has a heart condition; and no one is actually learning any word pairings.

So, would you be willing to zap someone, increasing the voltage each time, if they didn’t get what you were “teaching” them? Most people when asked say they wouldn’t do it, and they give all kinds of reasons—it’s inhumane, it’s wrong, pain doesn’t help you learn. Even I shook my head once the host of the TV show explained what was going on, and said, “No way would I participate in something like that!” Yet, of the 10 people pegged as teachers (the only people who really had no clue that it was a set up and that no one was actually being zapped or having to learn word pairings), only 1 person refused to participate and walked out after hearing what it was they were expected to do. Of the remaining 9, they all balked once the voltage got to about the mid-point. However, once the “doctor” assured them that the “student” was fine (despite the yelps and screams of pain they heard coming from the “student”, pleas to quit, and reminders of the heart issues), all 9 continued through to the end of the experiment.

The producers of Curiosity even changed up the experiment a bit and added 2 “teachers”, one who was in on the experiment and one who wasn’t. With the added consensus of the second “teacher” backing them, almost all of the “teachers” (7 out of 10) refused to continue the experiment beyond the mid-point despite the “doctor’s” insistence that the “student” would be fine, that no harm would occur, and that the experiment needed to be completed for the results to be of value.

So, what does that mean? It means that when confronted with authority, most of us are willing to concede responsibility to that authority. As long as the authority figure seems knowledgeable and non-threatening (to us), most of us are willing to follow whatever orders we’re given despite what our conscience is telling us. In fact, we’re so willing to offload our responsibility that most of us don’t even feel guilty or very upset by continuing the experiment.

However, when someone else shows that they also question the edicts of the authority figure, we’re more likely to listen to ourselves and our conscience, and take on the responsibility of our actions—we may continue the actions, but we feel guilty and upset, or we may start questioning openly that authoritarian’s edicts.

It’s interesting that for most of us, balking against authority takes acceptance by at least one other person. I’m not necessarily an anarchist, but I would certainly hope that I’m not such a sheep that I would willingly zap someone just because someone (whom I don’t know from Adam) says it’s okay. That’s what I hope; what choice I’d actually make…I don’t know.

How ‘bout you? Would you zap someone? Would you continue to zap someone just because you were told it was okay?