The Near Death Experience of Space, Time, and Consciousness: How the world was created and functions Click here for the book.
Based on many thousands of Out of Body reports associated with the Near Death Experience, and correspondence of the experience to principles from Relativity Theory and quantum mechanics, the nature of existence and the role of consciousness are analyzed and a theory is proposed. This theory hypothesizes that there is a universal field of consciousness in which the individual consciousness (spirit and soul) functions both in life and in eternity, before and after an Earth life. Whereas standard science holds that the material reality we observe is fundamental and regards consciousness as an epiphenomenon or unreal, the theory proposed here explains why consciousness is fundamental, and supports the material reality we normally perceive.
Jack H Hiller
Perspectives on
Reality as a Dimensionless Near Point Existence,
18 Dec, 2018
Jack H Hiller
Arguendo, there is a God, and He is
outside of time and space. In fact, there may be no time and space, only their
illusion, because there is nothing except God, and his imagination. Yet, we
experience time and perceive space extended in three dimensions as very real.
How so?
Consider that a point may be the asymptote
for infinite division of any extended line dimension, area, or volume in time.
For example, place a point on a line ½ unit (of anything) from an origin point
(0,0, 0,0,0, or 0000) and divide it by 2;
continue to divide the remainders by two for as long as you please out to
infinity, and the resulting points will asymptote to zero, with a delta even
smaller than the Plank constant for
length. With enough halving of the
distance between any arbitrary extended point on a line and its point of origin,
the resulting point separation becomes “negligibly” distant from its origin.
Just how far from the origin must the
extended point of displacement need to be to create a “real” extension from the
origin? Well, that extension is merely the width of close to nothing at all. So,
a three dimensional reality with duration in time may have approximately no
size. Thus, the answer to how the world may have been created by God from
nothing is that the world has approximately no size at all.
It may be conceptualized that all entities
existing within this effectively null sized world may be substantially smaller
even than the scope of such a world. Thus, all of our world may be
infinitesimally small, although appearing to us large at 14 B light years or
more in diameter. Now, because absolute distances within this tiny world are
small from God’s perspective, communication within this world is virtually
instantaneous by measurement, just as theorized for quantum entanglement.
How many such worlds may God have created?
Why or course an infinite number, with plenty of room to spare.
The world that we apparently see appears to
us to be very large, perhaps infinitely large, but from the perspective of a God
Creator, it could by tiny.
From what source did this philosophy
emanate? Having thought about the nature of
space-time, I had come to the conclusion that “time” is simply a marker for an
eternal now, and in a world of change, the eternal now accumulates a past and
holds the potential for an infinity of futures. But the nature of space was yet
a mystery. I have now run across an Out of Body Experience report that as the
person was oscillating between seeing outer space and the inner workings of body
cells, “ it was all the same.”: “I
found myself staring into a tunnel and moving very quickly backwards. First I
saw the moon and stars and they were very beautiful, then I moved back (at
tremendous speed) and the image changed to microscopic views of the inside of
blood vessels, then I moved back again and saw more of space, then again organic
cell matter. A message was given to me. It wasn't through a voice or a being, it
was instant knowledge. It said 'It's all the same. The expanse of space and the
cells of the body...it's all the same.'
“ (https://www.oberf.org/marcy_d_obes.htm
).
Analysis of the Differential Perception of Time Progression in the 2nd and 3rd Domains
Jack H Hiller, PhD, JD Nov 9, 2018
One of the remarkable features of the Out of Body Experiences
(OBE) associated with the NDE, or with Spiritually Transformative Experiences,
is the cessation of time. >From our ordinary experience, we just know that time
runs'how could time possibly not run? We know with certainty that there was a
past, contained in our memory, and we are thus sure there must be a future that
we will encounter as time runs. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and
explain why we perceive time to be running in our ordinary, material, life, but
when in spirit form, we no longer experience time running.
In the Universal
Consciousness (UC) paper (
https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Articles/universal_consciousness.htm
), three domains were delineated as: 1. God's
consciousness before creating the world of light; 2. The world of light, Heaven;
and 3. The material domain in which Earth life is experienced. During the NDE
with the observer experiencing Domain 2, it is universally reported that time
did not progress as experienced in the material 3rd Domain. The UC paper
proposed that Domain 2 is connected to Domain 3 to explain how communication for
entangled quantum particles can be instantaneous regardless of the separation
distance of the particles. This paper analyzes how perception of time
progression occurs in the 3rd Domain, but does not occur in the 2nd
Domain to which the 3rd Domain is connected.
Why does time progress in the 3rd
Domain? What might push it along, and how? Factually, time does
not
progress, although our minds create such a perception of time running for good
reasons. In the 3rd Domain, just as in the 2nd Domain,
there is a perception of the instant NOW. However, the material brain registers
an ongoing memory of now instants in isolation from the totality of existence,
corresponding to locally perceived, essentially isolated, ongoing activity in
the material world, and by recognizing the fact of such new memories being
compiled, logically conceptualizes a past time in which such memories were
formed (the idea of a future results from a simple logical expectation that
there will be additional memories to be formed from a hypothetical future). In
the material 3rd Domain, because all activity is perceived in
isolation from the totality of existence, such isolated activity is perceived as
new experience that correspondingly generates new memory, and thus the feeling
of time running.
But why doesn't consciousness existing
in the 2nd Domain of light also perceive time progression as it does
when attached to a brain located in the material 3rd Domain? The NDE
reports not only state that time does not run in the 2nd Domain, but
that all of eternity, the totality of the world of universal consciousness, is
directly perceptible, so that all events are concurrently perceptible. To
understand how all of existence, with all of events, may be 'seen' at once,
consider a scheme in which an observer is positioned on a high observation post
placed on a specific, but perfectly arbitrary, highway location (equivalent to a
NOW instant) with the ability to perceive both sides of the highway (one
direction may represent a formed past, and the other a future yet to be finally
formed).
The location of
the observation post was said above to be perfectly arbitrary, because if all of
eternity simply exists, with no clock running, then any particular event
selected as NOW has no fundamentally special position. A mathematician (Yuri I
Manin,
https://todayinsci.com/M/Manin_Yuri/ManinYuri-Quotations.htm
) discussing the implications of Special Relativity
Theory, explained well why there is no special isolated Now instant, and how
beings would experience existence in a world of light (what UC defines as the 2nd
Domain):
'What binds us to
space-time is our rest mass, which prevents us from flying at the speed of
light, when time stops and space loses meaning. In a world of light there are
neither points nor moments of time; beings woven from light would live 'nowhere'
and 'nowhen'; only poetry and mathematics are capable of speaking meaningfully
about such things.
'
Perception in the 3rd Domain
is constrained by the body's limitations in sensing only its immediate physical
environment of Now. Our brain, working from its constrained immediate
environment, cannot sense but a fraction of what exists. Furthermore, the
brain's knowledge is limited to its contained memory, and thus constrained by
its 'past' experience, while the future is only imagined as a possibility.
By contrast, consciousness functioning
in the 2nd Domain is reported to have instantaneous access to all
knowledge, and that knowledge is not by external perception, but through direct
participation in the Universal Consciousness that contains all knowledge. The
individual's consciousness is often described after the NDE by analogy as a drop
of water (the individual's consciousness) placed into the ocean that is God's
own consciousness. Thus, in the 2nd Domain, all of eternity simply
exists as a steady state that contains what is artificially segregated by brain
operating in the 3rd Domain into a past, present now, and future
potential. In a now famous letter to the family of a dear, departed friend,
Einstein wrote:
'Now
he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means
nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction
between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
'
It is seemingly contradictory to claim that time does not
run, as did Einstein referring to space-time as the architectural model of
reality in the above quote, but also state here that the world, reality, is ever
changing. The instant note here hoped to explain this apparent conflict as
rooted in our limited perception of reality, but it is so difficult for us,
trapped by our limited mortal perception, to understand how time does not run,
but indeed there is activity and the world is in constant flux.
Consider that if there were no change (as appears to be the
case in the space-time model of Einstein), then the world would be frozen, dead,
completely uninteresting, and not worthy of existing. It appears from our study
of quantum mechanics that change is, in fact, a predominant character of the
reality created by God for the 3rd Domain.
We will all find out the truth later, but by then it will not
matter.
An Absolute Limitation to the Rational Analysis of Experience, Consciousness, and World Origin: the Principle of Interior Unknowability
Jack H Hiller, Aug 22, 2018, Feb 20, 2019, and March 20, 2019
Finding: Any question about the nature of the world’s origin is not in principle one that may be addressed, much less answered, by observers constrained to locations within their world. By analogy, fishes born and living in a fish tank cannot possibly observe anything about the manufacturing of their tank's glass or the collection of the food and water placed into their tank. Being always immersed in our material world, we likewise are incapable of observing the nature of its construction as might be seen from a perspective external to its existence. This hard rule of unknowability from observation only within any system is termed The Principle of Interior Unknowability.
Rene Descartes famously declared his own reality by acknowledging that if he found himself to be thinking, then he must surely exist, whatever the form of existence might be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum ). As a technical philosophical matter, the “I” that thinks is vague, and the nature of the thought is ambiguous, because the hidden, subjective nature of thought is not available for direct, objective, scientific scrutiny. However, while the subject and action of Descartes’ proposition, as a first principle of philosophy, are nebulous, the action of thinking does point to an existence, whatever its true nature. This note takes the very opposite tact from Descartes’ line of reasoning to declare instead that we can truly know nothing about the nature of Creation from reasoning.
We start our analysis from a wonder about what the reality of existence is truly about by wondering about how any reality may exist. There are two main lines of philosophical thought about the origin of our world, the world that we perceive and think about: Creation by God, and random materialism, as held by atheists and agnostics.
The atheist position (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism ) is that there exists no supernatural God or deities, so that the world is an unguided machine that randomly acts; this perspective is supported by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in which quantum mechanics recognizes that at the sub atomic level, precise measurement of fundamental qualities is impossible, so what happens has a random basis. The origin of the material world is of no special concern. The world may have always existed, or it may have originated in some Big Bang from an indescribable singularity, and it may even pass thru cycles of birth, death and rebirth. No matter how it came to be, it just is.
The religious perspective is that a supernatural being, God, created the world. The philosophical issue about that concerns the origin of God, as Creator. As a logical matter, either God always existed (a strange thought for mortals who experience causation in which a given existence changes by an act to a new status of existence), or God somehow came into being from nothingness, a stranger yet explanation.
The meaning for any question about the nature of world Creation or even any defined localized system supposes an external observer frame of reference for its answer
The argument made by this note is that whether one accepts God as the Creator of the world, or holds that the world is a non-rational machine, we cannot possibly reason about the true nature of existence—we cannot possibly know the truth of how our world exists, regardless of whether it is static (always having existed) or transitional, from an inexplicable origin, because our ordinary perception and knowledge can only be acquired within this world that we inhabit, but the question about its origin has an external basis for its answer. To answer the question about Creation, we would have to be outside of it to perceive “where it came from” or “how it was made.” Thus, the question about the nature of the world’s origin is not in principle one that may be addressed, much less answered. By analogy, fishes born and living in a fish tank, and lacking a science and technology capable of analyzing glass, oxygen, food and water originating outside of it, cannot possibly imagine anything about the manufacturing production of the glass or the collection of the food and water placed into their tank. Being always immersed in our material world, we likewise are incapable of observing the nature of its construction as might be seen from a perspective external to its existence.
In an ingenious experiment on quantum superposition which demonstrated that separate observers may make differing, contrary, observations of a given superposition state (being collapsed or not, Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf ), the authors posed a possible solution as follows: "one way to accommodate our result is by proclaiming that “facts of the world” can only be established by a privileged observer—e.g., one that would have access to the “global wavefunction” in the many worlds interpretation..." Thus, their possible solution for avoiding observational inconsistency within a system (here a mini-world system of separated labs examining superposition states) was to seek a "privileged observer" located external to the mini-system of separate laboratories.
We may generalize the concept that requires elevation of observers to a frame external to the system or world to be observed as a hard rule for achieving self-consistent and valid system knowledge. This hard rule of unknowability for observers limited to observations being made only within the system to be known is termed The Principle of Interior Unknowability.
Consider that we cannot humanly, reasonably, imagine how something could originate from nothing. So, we cannot in principle fathom how God or any mechanical universe could come into existence from nothing. This line of reasoning is dead in its formation.
Let’s alternatively consider that God or the mechanical universe always existed, given that the form of God or the material universe may not be static. Well, how can anything have “always” existed, granted the form of the existence may not be static. In principle, we cannot imagine a situation in which the world always was there, always existed. We can state the proposition that the world always existed, but it defies human understanding.
Science and mathematics are not helping either, as both have admitted to irreducible uncertainties of knowledge, as well as the impossibility in principle of predicting the future based on past knowledge. As alluded to above, quantum mechanics had demonstrated in the lab a difficulty in pinning down with precision the measurement of momentum and position for the electron, because as the measurement apparatus was adjusted to measure one variable better, measurement of the other lost precision; Heisenberg ultimately realized that the phenomenon of uncertainty was not merely a fault of lab equipment, but was inherent in the nature of subatomic existence. The Schrodinger wave equation representation of quantum phenomena (Heisenberg had initially used a form of matrix algebra that he invented) formalized the uncertainty as intrinsic to quantum phenomena. In the study of cosmology, consensus is that approximately 95% of the matter and energy in our universe is currently not directly observable, thus termed “dark,” so that we observe less than 5% of existence. In mathematics, Kurt Godel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel ) proved that for non-trivial logico-mathematical systems (such as arithmetic), there will be theorems that cannot be proved, and that within seemingly internally self-consistent systems (which encompasses today’s massive computer programs) Turing’s halting problem applies (the problem being equivalent to Godel’s first Incompleteness Theorem) so there may be lurking inconsistencies that may only be found by trial, just as computer programming bugs are discovered by running them with data. This limitation of proof for all possible valid theorems for a “complex” axiomatic system by using the internal rules of the system may be an analogue to the impossibility of understanding, much less proving how our world was created.
Any attempt to understand the nature of consciousness also faces the problem of a lack of any external perceptual frame of reference
The impossibility of fully understanding the nature of the consciousness we have, whether or not created by God, may likewise be limited by our immersion in a field of consciousness. We may know something about it by experiencing it, but we are in principle unable to stand back and observe how it functions in the way that the science of physics requires for study of objects and phenomena. Just like the fishes in a fish tank, we are unable to objectively study consciousness because we are immersed within it. Thus, the Principle of Interior Unknowability may apply to objective, disciplined attempts to understand the nature of consciousness.
Conclusion
We have the predicament that both of the two available explanations for the reality of existence are in principle not understandable to the human mind, whatever the nature of “mind” or its consciousness may be. To restate this dilemma, we cannot rationally understand or explain how either explanation for existence, i.e., it always existed or, instead, it sprang from nothingness (e.g., God the Creator always existed, or a non rational mechanistic universe always existed, or either sprang from nothingness), can be true.
Given that we cannot view the creation of existence from any externally objective reference frame, so that the Principle of Internal Unknowability applies, there is nothing certain about existence that we can conclude by reasoning about what we humanly perceive or what we scientifically observe and measure from the interior of creation. We are reduced to acknowledging that what we experience, perceive, and believe we know about the material world may only be the mind’s “imaginary” construction of an apparent reality.
In sum, as Human, we are at a loss to be able to understand the nature of the reality we experience. In religion, there is a reliance on faith. In science, there is at best only the pretense of certainty about empirical knowledge. Perhaps the one remaining source of knowledge we may have that skirts science and religion comes from the Near Death Experience in which God is said directly to share all of knowledge about existence.
Click here for the paperback book.