Is there something that we are missing?

A fanciful little presentation about nothing

In early 2013 I wrote a pocket-sized booklet entitled “Big-Picture Reality – Is there something we are missing?” I referred to the work as being a fanciful presentation about nothing. The booklet was 48 pages in length and its contents were about reality as I “sensed” it might be at that time. There were very few references in the presentation and it was written in a rambling undisciplined style.

When I recently rediscovered this work on my computer, I noticed that I had made it clear at the time that I saw it as being pseudo-scientific and that I just make guesses with my ideas. Furthermore I was not a scientist. In other words there was no pretence on my part that the document was any more than a story and it should be read accordingly. I also made it clear that I was not seeking to prove anything. I never circulated the booklet because I belatedly decided it was a bit of a joke and therefore it was worthless.

Today, however I think that I was a little too harsh on myself for making such an arbitrary decision. With the benefit of hindsight I see my effort at that time contained many of the beginnings of my science related line of thinking and activities today. This includes what I believe in about science.

I am posting the original text in a blog today exactly as I wrote it. This is because I feel that it might contain material and ideas that could provoke students of science to look beyond [over the horizon] the content type and style of science that they might be commonly exposed to in educational institutions today. Other readers may find it to have interesting content as well. The link to a refined PDF version with the same information of the document immediately follows:

Big-picture reality

The dualistic nature of reality

I believe that these states are phenomena that are implicit and phenomena that are explicit

I believe that these two states are dual implicit and explicit, and they exist in a concurrent relationship with each other.

I describe phenomena that are materialistic as being explicit. I see sub-quantum phenomena such as consciousness as being implicit. I also see thoughts, decision making and the generation of subsequent behaviour as being implicitly driven phenomena [such as via the hidden laws of nature which include quantum entanglement, non-locality and morphogenic field theory).

In other words I am suggesting that this consistent interchanging between explicit and explicit states is the essential nature of reality and that these characteristics occur against a two-dimensional backdrop of cosmic Primordial Awareness. I also suggest that we have both implicit and explicit consciousness and that implicit consciousness is outside of our heads.

Is there a relationship between Gnosis and science?

Two eminent physicists seem to think that there is

My favorite physicist is David Bohm . My implicit/explicit Awareness model is closely aligned to the Hiley-Bohm implicate/explicate physics model. Both models have common features. This is as demonstrated on my webpage in: “Parallel nature of the Awareness model and Bohm”.

These features include there being a curtain-like backdrop to reality in each. I refer to this analogical curtain as being primordial awareness. I believe that there is a strong relationship between Bohm’s concept of  Gnosis  and science. The attached a PDF file to this blog is entitled “The Cosmic Plenum: Bohm’s Gnosis: The Implicate Order”. You will notice that throughout this file that I have emboldened different sections of text. I strongly urge you to read the emboldened areas. This is because they all have relevance to the wider meaning of both cosmological reality and life as well as compliment the structural content of my Awareness model.

Are the building blocks of life information?

Cosmologist Paul Davies proposes this theory and I agree with him

I have quoted the article below [Written by Andrew Masterson] because I feel that Paul Davies is correct with his cosmological information theory. Also see this Physics World article for additional information.


“Cosmologist Paul Davies proposes theory that building blocks of life may not be chemicals but information

July 10 2016

Written by: Andrew Masterson

Among all the extraterrestrial species featured in the late Douglas Adams’ excellent Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy novels there is one called a Hoovooloo, described as “a super intelligent shade of the colour blue”.

Oddly enough, this utterly abstract sort of alien might yet turn out to be the author’s most perspicacious invention.

What if alien life is ‘information’?

A leading Australian physicist has co-authored a new paper proposing a radical new theory of life.

If a new paper co-written by prominent Australian physicist Professor Paul Davies is on the money, every other fictitious ET, from Star Trek’s Vulcans to Star Wars’ Yoda, are the products of depressingly limited imaginations.

Pretty much all cinematic aliens – think Dr Who’s Sontarans, the bubble-headed things from Mars Attacks!, the giant worms from Dune – have something recognisably “life-like” about them: they have a chemical structure broadly similar to those found in earth species, and (it is implied) some kind of DNA-ish apparatus that facilitates reproduction.

Professor Paul Davies has a radical theory about the building blocks of life.

They are reasonable enough assumptions to make, but what if they are plain wrong?

Davies and co-author Dr Sara Imari Walker, both from the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at the Arizona State University, suggest that fleshiness and double-helixes might be things confined only to life on Earth. Life in the rest of the universe, they venture, could be based on something much more unlikely: information.

What’s more, Davies and Walker leave the door open – some say – to the involvement of a non-physical, perhaps godlike, influence in the development of life in the cosmos…” [if universal ‘implicit-awareness’ is godlike then I would agree with this notion]

“…The questions the pair raise might seem abstruse, but they are critically important. If humanity ever does encounter alien life it almost certainly won’t look like the dreadlocked guys or insect-monsters in Alien vs Predator. It will be life, Jim, but not as we know it. Real aliens may well be completely unrecognisable as living.

Dr Sara Imari Walker, from Arizona State University, has co-authored a paper with Paul Davies arguing that information rather than chemicals could be the basis for life.

“Without an understanding of ‘life’,” Davies and Walker write, “we can have little hope of solving the problem of its origin or provide a general-purpose set of criteria for identifying it on other worlds.”

The nature of information

Their paper – The “Hard Problem” of Life – has yet to be formally published.

Last month the pair posted it on a science pre-print server called arXiv, and already it is generating discussion among astrophysicists, bioastronomers and science philosophers.

The reason is clear. If “information” is shown to be the fundamental building block of life, the discovery will be a scientific revolution as game-changing as those of classical physics and quantum mechanics…”

“…Many pop culture extra-terrestrials, including the Sontarans from Dr Who, are assumed to have similar life structures to Earth’s life forms.

Mind you, it’s a very big “if”, and one that is attracting curt dismissal from some of Davies’ peers.

“I think their idea is interesting, but it begs the enormous question of how information can be causal in a physical system,”… “…said Dr Charley Lineweaver, of the Planetary Science Institute at the ANU’s Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Mt Stromlo Observatory in the ACT.

“I see no way to get around this obstacle.”

Lineweaver’s objection was echoed by many – though not all – scientists and philosophers contacted for this story. It can be illustrated by a simple example.

The fundamental unit of DNA is the gene – humans have around 25,000 of them. If you were to make a computer model of the human genome you could represent each gene with the smallest unit of computer code, known as a “bit”.

One gene equals one bit.

Dr Charley Lineweaver says the theory raises questions about how information can be causal in a physical system.

But the gene exists in the real physical world, and does stuff – like giving you brown eyes or red hair, for instance. The bit is a description of the gene. It does nothing, because it does not exist in the physical world.

Davies and Walker, however, raise the possibility that this basic distinction between real and not-real might be way wrong…” [I argue that all that is analogically ‘not-real’ (metaphysical)  is implicit and all that is real is materialistic]

“…It is a contentious suggestion.

“This is a category error,” said Dr John Wilkins, honorary fellow at Melbourne University’s School of Historical and Philosophical Studies.

Philosophical roots

Wilkins specialises in studying the relationship between information and evolutionary theory. Davies and Walker’s paper, he noted, being speculative, falls as much into the realm of philosophy as physics.

“It’s a long-standing category error that goes back a very long way in philosophy – arguably back to Plato,” he said. “It’s the idea that the way we represent something is somehow the essence of the thing being represented. It’s mistaking the map for the territory.”

Wilkins suggested that the authors had fallen into the trap of failing to distinguish between the complex mathematical modelling that physics demands and the actual physical world being thus modelled.

Their conclusions, he said, “are not philosophically well supported”…” [I strongly disagree]

“…Which brings us, in a weird kind of way, to the bit about gods. Wilkins’ assertion that mathematics model and measure a separate physical reality seems obvious – in the same way that you wouldn’t confuse a map of a town with the town itself. Surprisingly, however, it is not a universally held view, even among hard-nosed scientists.

From the Big Bang onwards, the universe has developed in line with precise mathematical laws, leading to the idea (seductive or repulsive, depending on your point of view) that maths is not a human invention but a fundamental force.

“Scientists have embraced a kind of mathematical creationism,” wrote New York Times science writer George Johnson back in 1998, “God is a great mathematician, who declared, ‘Let there be numbers!’ before getting around to ‘let there be light!'”

Davies and Walker come intriguingly close to allowing a Great Mathematician to enter the story of how the universe, and thus life, came into being. From one perspective it is the central assertion – revolutionary or shocking, take your pick – in their paper.

The ‘hard problem’

Bear with us here. This requires a short diversion.

By using the term “hard problem” to describe life Davies and Walker are deliberately echoing the landmark work of Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist Dr David Chalmers. In 1995 Chalmers declared consciousness to be a “hard problem” – by which he meant that although it is theoretically possible to measure precisely every neuron in the human brain, and track the sparks that flash between them, this understanding still doesn’t explain how thoughts, daydreams, or states of mind arise…” [I strongly believe they can be.]

“…Self-awareness, he said, is not an obvious product of the electrical activity inside your head.

Davies and Walker see a possible similarity with life. Assuming things live on other planets, they say, the question is whether all types of alien can be “accounted for in terms of known physics and chemistry, or whether certain aspects of living matter will require something fundamentally new”.

The “hard problem” in this instance, they add, “is the problem of how ‘information’ can affect the world.” It is a problem that they suspect “will not ultimately be reducible to known physical principles.”…” [Physics, Maxwell’s Demon hypothesis suggests that this is not the case, and this has been confirmed in numerous laboratory experiments.]

“…Or, in plainer terms, physics and chemistry won’t cut it alone: there’s something else in the mix. That something, they think, is “information” – but what exactly is that, and where did it come from?

The Reverend Dr Stephen Ames thinks he might have an idea. He is a canon at St Paul’s Cathedral in Melbourne, and a lecturer at Melbourne Uni who holds dual doctorates in physics and the history and philosophy of science.

“I do think of the universe as being structured towards an end, and part of that end is that it is knowable through empirical inquiry,” he said.

In other words, the laws of physics are what they are – but studying them, in time, over generations of scholarship, will lead to the understanding that in a fundamental way the universe was kick-started by what Ames terms a “powerful agent” – or, in more traditional terms, God.

External force

Regardless of what anyone chooses to call it, the interesting (and to many scientists troubling) thing is that by suggesting that life may not be completely explicable through physics and chemistry, Davies and Walker implicitly leave open the possibility of some sort of metaphysical force playing a hand. The pair is quick, however, to rule out one popular, contentious idea.

Basic logic (and math) tell us that in order for the universe, and life, to develop in the way that it has, there must have been very precise initial conditions at the instant of the Big Bang. Even the most minuscule difference in any one of scores of things – the number of electrons, for instance, or the ratio of matter to antimatter – would have resulted in a universe in which planets and people were impossible.

The problem, say Davies and Walker, is that to get to where we are today those initial conditions “must be selected with extraordinary care, which is tantamount to intelligent design: it states that ‘life’ is ‘written into’ the laws of physics”. There is no evidence, they conclude, of “this almost miraculous property”.

Ames agrees with them in dismissing ideas of intelligent design, a largely creationist idea equally unpopular among mainstream physicists and theologians (of which, of course, he is equally representative).

“The word ‘design’ brings to mind too many ideas of engineering and blueprints,” he said.

“But I’m personally very interested in Davies’ endeavours to give an account of the universe in terms of information and in terms that would appear not to need any special initial conditions…” If he can do it, that would be remarkable.”…” [The highly respected Hiley-Bohm physics model does this.]

“…For many in the physics and astrophysics games, however, even the simplest suggestion that hard science can’t ultimately account for the entire universe and everything in it – alive or not – sets off warning bells.

And in this area, it should be noted, Davies has form. You would struggle to find a definite pro-deity statement is any of his writing, but he is very fond of religious metaphor – one of his books is called The Mind of God – and some of his statements are, well, a tad ambiguous.

“If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it,” he wrote in a 2007 newspaper article. For mainstream physicists any suggestion of “ultimate meaning” is close to salivating, revival tent fundamentalism.

“He’s on that edge of philosophy and physics all the time,” said Ames.

‘Deliberate’ ambiguity…” [When you are dealing with non-locality in mainstream physics, of course it is. I see these words as being an unfortunate statement.]

“…Sydney astrophysicist and bioastronomer Dr Maria Cunningham, of the UNSW School of Physics, said she found Davies and Walker’s paper fascinating but was troubled by its possible theological implications.

“Davies’ ambiguity is deliberate, I think,” she said. “Since before the term intelligent design was coined – going back 25 years or so – he has maintained that the parameters and constants of our particular universe are so finely tuned that it does make you wonder whether this is just a random thing.

“It’s something that physicists and philosophers have been talking about for a long time. I think maybe [Rene] Descartes was one of the first to actually come up with the idea that there had to be something separate for life – that it couldn’t just be a mechanistic process.”

Cunningham described herself as a “hard-headed reductionist” who sees neither a way, nor a need, for information to exert an influence. Eventually identifying the deep laws that govern life – which she feels to be rare in the rest of the universe, but there, nevertheless – will not need the “new physics” Davies and Walker suggest.

“I don’t feel comfortable with the suggestion that because living things exist there has to be new physics explaining living things,” she said.

She pointed to recent studies revealing that hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide – both floating around in outer space – when exposed to ultraviolet light can form nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids, the basic building blocks of life. These and similar research projects may one day sufficiently answer the question of how life comes to exist, without reference to new science or old gods.

Of course, perhaps somewhere in the universe, a few dozen light years away, one of Douglas Adams’ Hoovooloos already knows that answer.

The trouble, as people familiar with Adams will be aware, is that it is very likely to be “42”. Which doesn’t help at all.

(Paul Davies’ office was approached with a request for an interview for this story. There was no response.)”

Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena?

I believe the multifaceted nature of reality makes this impossible

I consider that reality physics is a model that can address the fundamental elements of reality in three parts. These elements are information, process and change. These parts are conditions that have both local (physical) and non-local (non-physical) properties.

I think that we should consider these combined elements and properties as being representative of a matrix of all that “IS’. These words mean that the local and non-local mechanics of reality are an informational stochastic process. This is as if it were events relating to its own reference frame as well as objects emanating from itself. This process relating to the matrix is without time, and under certain circumstances (relating to conditions, influences and effects relating thereto) might then be aware of itself as being in a ‘state of something’. It is this state of awareness of itself that we call space. Some physicists refer to this space as being space foam. We measure movement and change in space with clocks and this is why Einstein called space, space-time.

From a physical science perspective therefore, when we consider that this matrix of informational conditions ‘surrounds’ us in every conceivable set of circumstances that such circumstances are both macroscopic and microscopic in nature. Furthermore it is possible to understand that macroscopic and microscopic somehow influence each other. This includes all that is physical and all that is not. Thus it can be said that it is from these space-time conditions that elementary particles such as electrons, neutrino’s, gluons, preons and quarks might emerge. It is these five types of informational ‘things’ that are necessary to give these things some sort of local and non-local status that we can identify with and make sense of. This includes under what circumstances, and how and why we ‘fit’ into this informational matrix as well.

Thus I feel that quantum mechanics is neither a precise theory nor does it ‘dig’ deep enough into the matrix of informational reality that I am discussing at this time. When I say deep enough I mean into the sub quantum domain where hidden geometric forms, entangled fractal patterns and other similar type hidden variables from which sub-quantum ‘things’ can be mathematically identified and predicted. This includes what the ‘natural energy of the universe might be, where mass and charge come from and where from do particles obtain the properties that they do.

My purpose today is to bring forward a series of quotations from a document entitled ‘The Quantum Interventions’. These quotations come from the eminent physicists Antony Valentini at a time when he was being interviewed by journalist Maximiliasan Schlosshauer with respect to the quantum mechanics debate. This includes Valentini’s criticism of it. This document is in a lengthy question and answer format. Here are questions Valentini discusses in question seven. You will find that Valentini discusses certain items that are also relational to my introductory words above.

This is the difficulty of separating physics things that are informationally non-local and local. When I address the question of separating macroscopic and microscopic things with regard to question seven. I will not always attempt to formally address the particular difficulties Valentini seems to have identified with quantum mechanics. What I will do at different times is to relate Valentini’s words and ideas to some of the ideas I have presented to you in the opening section of this blog, as well as express my ideas with respect to any given point that I feel are appropriate to further discuss.

I have cut and pasted eight different parts of text from question seven as described and have made eight different sets of comments and I have addressed each one separately.

Quotation 1.


What Valentini appears to be saying is that the world we experience and observe around us is incomplete at its deepest physical level. I believe it when he says that there are no precisely defined boundaries between the microscopic and macroscopic level is because in my opinion there is none. The reason for this is that reality physics is both informational, and local and non-local at the same time. I say that informational non-local physics at its deepest level ‘dominates’ local physics. Local physics is somehow beholden to non-local physics as is demonstrated by quantum entanglement theory and new physics discoveries relating to the influences and effects of hidden variables. Hidden variables are associated with and described in this associated and important non-locality blog that I recently posted. I believe that there is no such thing as objective reality. There is a describable reality like I am discussing with you today in the local reference frame of space time reality. However, this does not include the influence and effects of non-local fields (including entanglement) upon the local reality field that we refer to as we commonly state as being objective reality.

Quotation 2.


What Valentini seems to be discussing here is that whereas an apparatus positioned in a lab may point in a particular direction with respect to particles, it generally has indefinite positions relating to them. he says that because of the inseparable relationship between macroscopic and microscopic systems there can never be a definite relationship between both scales of either. You will see why I agree with Valentini, that such a separation is impossible. This is because of the properties of both non-locality and entanglement that are unpredictable with regard to the local macroscopic field of objects and events relating to these objects in any reference frame.

Question 3.


Valentini raises the question as to what is real and not real. What he is questioning is the common use of language with respect to different reference frames as well as that of an observer. Vaalentini is questioning why ‘something’ is only real in physics once it has been observed. He distinguishes what is real and not real with respect to reality science by dismissing the notion of ‘realness’ with any object or event. Valentini seems to be saying that realness should be related to being a state of tangible objectiveness with respect to something such as if a cat is dead or alive or not. I say that because of the concurrent relational properties of entanglement of local and non-local physics no specific human reasoning can be applied to such a relationship. This is because we are applying local reasoning to discuss such physics and not always intuitive elements as well. The best that can be done is to attempt to predict something.

Question 4.


Valentini continues to discuss the elements of item three. What he seems to be suggesting is that it is not correct for physics to say that the ever changing measurement in a lab physics problem has something to do with a higher being (a God’s eye view’) of all that ‘IS’. This is either inside or outside the lab. He is saying that the dial and pointer associated with any given apparatus relates to the apparatus only. The facts relating to the apparatus are in respect of how ‘something’ is influencing the apparatus to provide measurable information in the manner that it does. So such a fact is a local fact. The fact that a local fact is a response to a separate non-local fact (whether it might be in the mind of the observer or wider non measureable space foam influence) means that any true fact is one that incorporates both local and non-local information with respect to their concurrent relationship with each other.

Question 5.


Valentini talks about what the word logic really means. He relates logic as being related to clear thinking and description. He distinguishes between creative mathematical descriptions and predictions with clear thinking. He says it is a mistake to dismiss something (like an inconclusive lab experiment) when such a a failure is related to classical (rigid) logic. In other words he is saying that a clear problem deserves a clear answer devoid of classical rules or expectations to the meaning of the word logic.

Question 6.


Valentini says it is wrong to to dismiss objective reality as being reality on a macroscopic scale. I have addressed the notion of reality and what it is in various question responses above.

Question 7.


Valentini says that in order to make quantum mechanics a precise theory there must be ‘something’ that extends into into the macroscopic domain. This microscopic domain is the matrix of non-local information that not only means something unto itself but also its concurrent local (physical) domain as well. The Awareness model demonstrates this relationship, as do others.

Question 8.


Valentini says it is wrong for physics to talk only about definite states of objective reality relating to macroscopic reality and this is why there is so much controversy in the realm of of physics. He points out that there is obvious ambiguity when one tries to separate things that are macroscopic and macroscopic. I have addressed the inappropriateness of this where I have described reality ass being an informational one of process and change in relation to itself. This means with reference to the matrix of information that I have described.

If you have found merit in some of Valentini’s ideas I urge you to further review the whole of the interview with Valentini relating to the subject ‘The Quantum Interventions’.

You will find that the contents of my blog entitled “The inescapable duality of all “things”” are complementary to this presentation.

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.

Maxwell’s Demon converts information into energy

A laboratory conducted experiment in has established that a 150 year old scientific belief is valid

The background to this Japanese experiment is that, using real time feed back control, it is possible to to make particles climb a spiral stair-case like potential exerted by an electric field and gain free energy larger than the amount of work done on it. You will find the original experiment is presented in Nature Physics 6, 988-922 (2010)

It is my opinion that this experiment has enormous relevance to all divisions of science. I include in these words science relating to sub-quantum phenomena such as I that am promoting with my sub quantum Awareness model of physics.

Maxwell’s Demon Converts Information into Energy

Is it possible to make matter from nothing?

The answer to this question is both yes and no

Particles perpetually moving backwards and forwards through the sheet that creates scientifically measurable activity.

It seems that matter does not emerge from nothing at all. It comes from cosmic activity that is invisible to most of us.

This is an older blog that I first posted in late 2014. I firmly believe that the contents of my older text immediately below will be of interest to you. I have emboldened the section that I feel will interest you most.

Most readers may not know that the universe is full of hidden activity. In physics this activity is referred to as being virtual particle activity. This means that the vacuum of the universe is not really full of nothing at all. It is these virtual particles that are responsible for creating matter. These particles are very active and they move through the thickness of a metaphorical bed sheet all the time. This means on one side of the sheet they are scientifically identifiable and measurable and on the other side they are not.

It is these particles perpetually moving backwards and forwards through the sheet that creates scientifically measurable activity. This activity is influenced by gravity. This is called the Hawking process, which involves high levels of gravity drawing virtual particles into the cosmic universe. It follows from these words that matter does not emerge from nothing at all. It comes from cosmic activity that is invisible to most of us. The attached audio is a segment of a video recording to the topic. It is discussed by the eminent cosmologist Dr. Lawrence Krauss in attendance with Dr. Richard Dawkins. Virtual particle activity has been discovered to exist at the time of the Big Bang and have been photographed as such.

The particular segment of the Youtube video can be found at the time frame of 1:51 hours:


The minimum speed of the entanglement influence is just the one divided by the other, or 144,500 times the speed of light

This blog will help you to understand why it is that “things” can travel at 10,000 times the speed of light


It is generally believed in physics that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. A  quantum effect known as the EPR paradox has strongly suggested that this seems correct. It has been scientifically demonstrated  by experiment that a particle on one side of the universe can instantly influence one on the opposite side of the universe. In my Awareness model I postulate that such phenomena is possible.This is because instant communication is occurring outside Relativity space time (quantum space foam) and is travelling in an adjacent (concurrent) reference frame of absolute time (without time). I have nominated this reference frame as being Primordial-Awareness. The quote below has been extracted from an on line article that describes this phenomenon and furthermore a supporting laboratory experiment has been cited


“The minimum speed of the entanglement influence is just the one divided by the other, or 144,500 times the speed of light. However, a number of factors go into the interpretation of the results, which reduce the lower limit of the speed of entanglement influence to about 10,000 times the speed of light.

Notice that this result does not eliminate the possibility that the influence of entanglement actually is instantaneous – it merely sets a limit saying how close the influence must be to infinitely fast. Another possibility that is gaining credence is that entanglement dynamics may operate external to time, or at least may ignore time as it ignores distance”. The experiment that supports this hypothesis can be found here:

Have you ever wondered what keeps you in organic and cosmic balance in tune with the wider universe?

Welcome to the wonderful world of fractals

Have you ever wondered what keeps you in organic and cosmic balance in tune with the wider universe? You may feel this is a fanciful story but it is not. This blog is about fractals, Fractal theories are not likely to be taught in schools because I have read it is impossible to reconcile phenomena of this type within Albert Einstein’s equations relating to the distribution of space matter. However, regardless of this possible difficulty I will discuss with you what I feel is the phenomena that not only holds us together but helps set directions in our lives as well. I am not ignoring the role gravity plays in organically stabilizing us but I am ignoring this phenomena for now as well. I think you will find the fractal story a fascinating one. It is far too big a story to relate in a few words but I will do my best by means of metaphors. The well illustrated file attached has been inserted to assist you in this respect.

I think it is true to say without fractals there would be no such thing as cosmic balance. This means all things appear to be fragmented and chaotic. This includes within and around you and me as well. Fractals are like a system of identifiable inward-order of all things, an order that is staring us all in the face if we care to look for it. This includes flowers in our garden, my lungs, the shapes of ram’s horns, the shape of a shell fish and nearly all phenomena that is imaginable, including behavioral aspects of the cosmos itself. I believe all things in life, including a mere thought are different in some way, however subtly. However, amongst these differences are entwined an invisible system that brings some sort of degree of similarity of these differences which eventually grows into patterns of differences. It could be said these differences make a difference to differences which in turn can be seen to be like a neural network in our body. Furthermore these patterns both change and are infinitesimal in size and you will see this in the complexity of all of nature which includes the head of a simple rose. Have a close look at a rose flower. The patterns of the petals are not random. There is a distinct pattern within their organization from the heart of the rose. This is a non-liner process, a process that needs merely a minute amount of energy to both kick start it and keep it functional. Every petal of the rose that grows is resultant from a tiny puff of new energy and it is the inherit fractal guided energy within the cosmos that brings with it the same inherit fractal patterns that this rose petal is guided by as well (see illustration within the associated file). This same process manifests itself in all things and it is because a famous mathematician by the name of Mandelbrot we have been privileged to better understand these things and it is also the result thereof I was able to develop the blob-physics idea in my efforts to help understand reality at every conceivable level.

Mandelbrot has identified and described the amazing world of fractals in nature and furthermore has been able to show how computers can be programmed to replicate every facet of nature in a manner that is nearly impossible to visually differentiate from original images emanating from nature. He has identified the role of a fourth dimension in relationship to our fractural connection with wider consciousness. He has identified curves in cross sections of magnetic fields that he suggests implies there is a 3D link to electromagnetism and it is therefore a deeply structural and fundamental part of life. Mandelbrot’s idea are akin to Bohm’s Implicit order model and also underpins my own beliefs in relationship to me linking blobs (patterns) of information and knowledge to each other. This in turn lead me to attempt to better understand all that we commonly perceive to be reality.

I feel that you will enjoy the following url links relating to fractals.

Arthur C Clarke talks about fractals

Fibonacci Fractals and Inorganic Teleology

The incredible nature of morphic resonance and morphic fields

Are morphic fields dominating our lives? I think that there are good reasons to believe that they are.

The interesting feature about morphic field theory is that it relates to biology, more particularly to the development of plants, their morphogenesis genes and their associated relationship to the development of animals, which includes us. Morphic fields can be seen as biological fields, or developmental fields which can be directly linked back to quantum field theory in conventional physics.

I feel the important thing you should appreciate in that morphic field theory is that all cells in our body (and all life forms as well) are derived from other cells and that all cells exhibit fields of organization. Genes are part of this organization but they do not explain the organization itself which is where I think my Awareness model comes into play with its concept of blobs, links; weak links, strong links and dead links with scientifically determinable values. This is in accordance with Quantum Homotopic Field Theory relating to space quantum foam.

I have attached an article from Nexus Magazine, volume 12, number 3 (April – May 2005). Despite its age I believe it is a credible article that is supported by ideas derived from a number of respectable scientists including Miller, Hameroff and Penrose.

Organ Transplants and Cellular Memories.pdf