View source for Hugh Fairman's Big TOE

[[Category:Hugh Fairman|Fairman, Hugh ]]
[[Category:TOE]]
[[Category:parapsychology]]

<div style="background:azure; border:1px outset azure; padding:0 1em; max-width:900px; margin:0 2em; ">

<center>
<b><big>My Big Toe</big></b>
;(Theory of Everything)
</center>

;<small>Edited for wiki style by [[user:XenoEngineer|XenoEngineer]]</small>

This is my own personal 'take' on 'Life, The Universe and Everything' and it should be clearly understood by any reader that it does not carry the 'imprimatur' of scientific peer review, and nor do the ideas expressed herein carry any significant 'force' via any peer-reviewed printed articles put out by myself. Other scientists – far more qualified than myself in their fields of expertise – have done all the 'heavy lifting' behind these ideas, all this short article does is to 'cherry-pick' some of their findings and then to use them as 'scientific support' to underpin the concepts outlined in this short essay.

Over a decade ago I teamed up with a colleague (Tina Laurent) d. 2014) in order to try and understand and 'explain' a very strange talent that she apparently possessed. 

What she did was extremely simple (in science lab terms), and she just mounted a digital flash camera on a stand and took numerous flash-images of steam vapour clouds silhouetted against a matt-black background. 

She then examined the outcome(s) at leisure after a 'session' that would last some 15-20 minutes or so. After an initial short period of some 6 weeks of 'Interesting Patterns' ('IP'), she quite suddenly started to download brightly coloured images that contained very 'recognisable objects' - such as faces, cars, buildings or trees and the like. Now initially, our activities has been purely along the lines of myself - acting as the 'astrophysicist' as it were – attempting to identify the IP's that she had taken – acting like the 'astronomer' as it were – looking at randomised IP<>OP images (OP are 'Outside Photos' of steam clouds taken by 'strangers' that Tina Laurent co-opted as controls for a session), that Tina Laurent sent to me via the web which I then had to try and 'disentangle' as a 'single-blind observer' into 2 groups. 

One would be all 'IP's', and the others (comprising the control group) would all be 'OP's' was the hope of our doing this exercise in the first place. The IP<>OP image ratio was always kept at 50:50 and she would usually download them in blocks of about 10 or 12 (the email systems were not so good at data handling attachments in those days), and the idea was we (I) would look for +ve deviations above the 50:50 'random norm' to be expected, and apply our 'P number' calculations to the results. All we initially had hoped to find was that evidence of some kind of 'Paranormal Psychokinetic effect' revealing itself in Tina Laurent's intriguing 'IP's, and in fact the 'success hit rate' above the purely random was reaching P<.00001 levels or so when quite suddenly the whole nature of her 'IP's changed. She suddenly got downloads that showed clear colours and shapes/forms and we both just thought 'Oh Wow!' and we abandoned our initial exercise without a moment's regret.

The whole focus shifted towards trying to answer the basic questions as to just 'What is going on here?' and also 'How can the Laws of Nature (as currently understood), 'allow/permit' this whole process?' One thing though did stand out, which is the basic fact that while it may be possible to 'Walk on Water', it sure is impossible to 'Draw' in the stuff and we were looking at some kind of 'Mind-over-Matter' phenomenon being demonstrated here. Over the subsequent few years certain aspects of 'Nature' have become more 'apparent' and when put together as a combination start to make matters far more understandable. 

Also, whilst a full understanding of the details may require a considerable degree of 'specialist knowledge', especially with regards to mathematics, quantum physics, astrophysics and biochemistry it is possible to explain things very reasonably just using ordinary lay-man's language for the most part. The main aspects of what seems to be happening to create these strange IPs that Tina Laurent downloaded are detailed below, but not necessarily in the order in which they were 'understood'.

Nature has a perfect memory system.

These 'new IP's that Tina Laurent was downloading deserved their own descriptive name and we chose to call them 'Para-pics' (cf. 'Paranormal Pictures), and she downloaded many hundreds of examples, over a thousand in fact. After her untimely death from cancer in 2014 I was forced to learn how to use my own 'telescope' and start taking my own Para-pic images. Again a similar 'pattern' of a rather 'dodgy' start, but soon enough I too could download similar 'information-rich' image contents from apparently quite amorphous water vapour clouds (steam). There were differences however, and I never achieved Tina Laurent's richness of colour changes, and her often 'dramatic' imagery. My images tended to have extremely detailed contents, but rather less colour. The details however did make 'understanding' more easy on occasion, although 'reading' a para-pic is far from simple. The 'format' it presents is much more akin to a straightforward routine X-ray (not a CT scan), with much superimposition of detail, and the scales all being variable even within a single frame. Fortunately, as a long-retired medic I do have some experience and training at unravelling X-ray images (though I am not a radiologist), and this was very helpful. Even later in this 'journey' my young step-daughter (MRCL), became a keen 'Para-picist' and between the ages of around 4 to 8 years she would avidly do Para-pic sessions on the occasions that she came to visit. Her outcomes were also extremely good, I often preferred reading her images to mine, and it was again interesting to see the changes in their 'theme/content' compared to both Tina Laurent's and mine. She often had items like small furry animals (her pets), and schoolroom scenes with teachers and friends, whereas quite frequently mine might be medically or sea/boats related (a serious hobby).

It rapidly became apparent to us that Para-pics had certain 'patterns' to them, and that in many ways these 'patterns' rather 'mimicked' similar ones that are found in the behaviour of nano-particles at the 'quantum level' of physics. The Para-photo operator was often 'picking up' on 'topics' that that were 'entangled' within their own mind/life history, MRCL had her schooldays, pets and toys as frequent 'themes', I had my medicine and sailing boats, while Tina Laurent picked up a lot about ancient Egypt and its Pharaohs or film industry (she married an Egyptian, who sadly predeceased her), spent time living in Egypt and once was in proximity to Hollywood. I have had a long-standing interest/curiosity about what medical conditions might have been responsible for Henry VIII's historically famous change of personality and disorders that so afflicted and affected him in later years of his reign. Tina Laurent downloaded HVIIIR images quite frequently 'for me' as it were. Later I got some of my own as well.

We noticed that 'big media events' seemed to 'turn up the volume' and often led to multiple downloads on an 'identifiable theme'. Notable examples of this include the stranding of the cruise-ship 'Concordia', the tragic 'Breivic shootings' in Norway, 'Wolf Hall' TV series screening (HVIIIR and Cromwell again), and a TV screening of the 'RMS Laconia' incident in 1942 when U-156 Kapitan Werner Hartenstein attempted to tow some survivors of a sunken ship to safety in the South Atlantic. When 'millions of minds' are all 'entangled' on the same 'topic/theme' of interest Tina Laurent could 'dial in' on it all it seemed to be the message. Tina Laurent loved birds and downloaded numerous impressive avian para-pics – she somehow 'entangled' with their minds. Archaeological 'digs' cropped up, notably a WW1 trench-work uncovered as a 'mini-Pompeii' at Carspach in France, and the 'Terracotta warriors' tomb in China.

My partner suffers severe upper abdominal pain (could it be gallbladder?), but I manage to deduce that she has a 'trapped nerve' in her lower thoracic spine that has 'referred' the pain across her upper abdomen and we are able to relieve it by postural means. That same evening Tina Laurent downloads a 'meaningless' Para-pic that she posts up some 24-48 hrs later. I too am baffled by it for some weeks, until I suddenly realise that it is a a kind of 'body-dissection colour view' of the nerves of the spine as they emerge with a normal upper one, and the 'pinched' lower one. A kind of 'real CT image' as it were, but how has Tina Laurent 'got this information'. Well, my partner (LD) has no 'medical insight' of any description, although I (HDF) certainly do. Tina Laurent is some 300 miles distant and is in complete ignorance of this whole episode as such, so how come she (Tina Laurent) can download LD's trapped nerve image then? The only 'logic' we can apply is one of subconscious telepathy via some kind of 'transmitting field'. LD<>HDF are 'entangled' via a 'shared life-history' mechanism. HDF<>Tina Laurent are 'entangled' via a long-standing 'theme of a shared interest cum life-history'. Thus a 'bridge of LD<>HDF<>Tina Laurent entanglement' is created whereby LD's medical problem can 'emerge' in a Tina Laurent para-pic. It is for reasons/examples like these that I have no problems in accepting and promulgating the (controversial) view that 'Nature has a 'Memory'. Since this format does not provide for images here is a link to a Facebook website that can enable a reader to actually see some para-pics for themselves and form their own assessments, be they favourable or otherwise.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/569752643168720/

This 'memory faculty' that provides a rather simplistic explanation for the phenomena that Para-pics have revealed I have called an 'Information Field' or iFIELD (upper case) in short. What really needs to be appreciated by the reader at this point is that Tina Laurent (and HDF/MRCL) are far from being the only 'players' in this 'Game of Para-pics', and there are many others who practise 'accessing the iFIELD' via water (liquid or vapour), or electronic video loops or crystals that is collectively called 'ITC' and they can be found on websites such as Facebook. This is a link to a French ITC site called IFRES on Facebook that produces impressive ITC images in vapour if the reader feels they need more convincing.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=ifres&__epa__=SEARCH_BOX&__eps__=comet.home&__hcr__=eyJpZCI6IjEwMDA2NzgxMDk4NjU3MCIsInNvdXJjZSI6IlRZUEVBSEVBRF9VU0VSX01BUktFUiJ9

The fact remains however, that while invoking an 'iFIELD' as at least a partial explanation for para-pics' existence, there remains a deep problem of trying to 'explain' how 'Nature' has come to possess such an entity at all. Not that this bothers serious physicists as a group in general since they will 'create' such concepts as a Gravitational field, a Higgs field (mass), or an Electromagnetic field (EM or EMF) from 'nowhere' and use them in an explanatory context with no controversy. This 'iFIELD' proposition/hypothesis is a 'component' of the 'Zero-point Field' (ZPF) that underlies quantum field physics theories that strive to explain the origins of physical matter particles and the forces that act upon them. (Bosons and Fermions). There is some possible help on the horizon here however, in the form of a mathematical treatise/hypothesis put forward in book form and papers written by Prof Gerard Gremaud from Lausanne that he entitles the 'Crystalline Ether' (link below).

https://gerardgremaud.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/THE-CRYSTALLINE-ETHER-a-simple-and-unified-explanation-of-the-theories-of-modern-physics-and-the-Universe.pdf

Nature has a 'Hard-drive' mechanism that underpins the 'iFIELD'


The basis of Prof Gremaud's thesis is that if one postulates a 'slightly elastic' structure with a 'lattice-framework' then absolutely everything in terms of particles and forces that comprise Nature as we understand it, can be derived via the use of strictly mathematical logical processes. This 'elastic lattice' he has called The Crystalline Ether (CE), and it is postulated that perhaps the CE is the 'foundation of Nature' since it is possible to completely unify both quantum theory and Relativity under its 'mathematical umbrella' as well as explain currently baffling problems such as 'Dark Energy' and 'Dark Matter'. It also makes testable predictions such as new possible particles and the anti-gravity properties of small particles called neutrinos.

Now, I am in absolutely no position to make any useful comments upon the validity of all the mathematics involved, that will all need appropriate peer review. I am however quite happy to accept that it may very possibly all be perfectly valid within maths logic. That stance however then leads on to discussions about 'What is Maths anyway?' which far sharper minds than mine have tackled in depth before. Whatever the consensus may be on the correct answer to this rhetorical question there is absolutely no doubt from basic past experience that if a rigorous mathematical analysis 'predicts' some physical phenomenon, then usually this 'prediction' proves to be ultimately correct. It is for exactly such a reason that physicists pay so much attention to what mathematicians have to offer.

A second 'difficulty' with Prof Gremaud's 'CE-drive' it would seem to invoke is how to explain the mechanisms by which it can be 'constructed' in the first place. The CE is a 'lattice' of cuboid form with a small degree of elasticity. It is 'built' from a sub-matter quantum-level kind of 'stuff' in some way, and the question arises 'How?'. Well, the 'formless stuff' of the 'CE-Drive' is of course the 'Ether' component' which is an old scientific concept originally invoked to explain the 'wave-like' aspect of light (UV, infra-red etc.) as opposed to its particle-nature (photon). Modern science has discarded the 'Ether' hypothesis as being 'unnecessary', but this treatise is a form of 'resurrection' of a much older idea. I am going to dodge this issue by following the example of Heisenberg and Born (founders of quantum physics) who called this 'formless quantum stuff/fluid' using the term 'Aperion' after the Greek philosopher Anaximander who is thought to have first suggested this around 500BC.

'Aperion' is just formless 'IS' in this concept as opposed to the alternative 'NOT' that is 'NO-THING', it is the 'white' of 'white<>black', or the '1' of'0<>1' of binary computation. Lao Tse phrased this in 550BC as follows:- “In the beginning was 'First' – ('Black/0/NOT'), and the 'First gave rise to the 'Second' – ('White/1/IS'), and together they gave rise to the 'Third' (a 'Googleplex of Grey' ie. The 'Strings' of Physics). When first formed Aperion has no 'forces or form' as such, and thus we encounter the problem of how can such changes be actually created. One spontaneous mechanism might be that of 'sympathetic or harmonious vibration'. Indeed this kind of mechanism may lie at the heart of the quantum phenomenon of 'entanglement'. There is another possibility though that might be useful in this same context, and this is the one of the 'Quantum Viking Knot Vortex' (QVK).

https://scitechdaily.com/viking-knots-linked-with-quantum-vortices-a-vortex-structure-that-is-impervious-to-decay/

The link above leads to yet another mathematically derived phenomenon, that of linking 'eddies' or 'vortices' in a topologically unique fashion that makes them impervious to decay within a 'quantum fluid'. This is in effect a kind of 'knitting rings together' – rather like chain-mail – in such a fashion that once formed they will not ever degrade. Now, just like the 'CE-Drive' above, this paper too is 'just maths' and there is no actual physical proof of the actual existence of QVK's as such, but the authors think that a laboratory physical proof/demonstration might be possible in the future. However, in the context of this discussion QVK's provide a very possible 'mechanism' whereby a 'lattice' or 'cuboid semi-elastic surface' might come into being. To coin a bad metaphor, QVK's provide a way of 'knitting woolly Viking jumpers/hats' as it were, they provide a possible 'stepping stone' for a mechanism for 'maintenance of form' within the otherwise formless Aperion of Nature in its sub-matter quantum aspect. While this simple metaphor has its uses, physicists suggest that matters may be more complex than just 'knitting' as shown by this link:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#:~:text=The%20holographic%20principle%20states%20that,the%20surface%20of%20its%20boundary.

…”The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just Black Holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and that the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information “inscribed” on its boundary”.
Hologram images are created by bouncing a laser-beam (1) off the object and at the same time capturing all the reflected wave via a second laser-beam (2) that is angled across the scene. The resultant picture is a rather confusing 'moire-pattern' of waves, and not the actual object as such. However, if one now picks up this same plate and shines a laser-beam through it, the complete original object's image will reappear. All of the shape/form of the object has been 'remembered' within the wave interference patterns created between the 'scattered' beam of laser 1, and the cross beam of laser 2. Hologram-images though have very different properties compared to 'ordinary' digital photos. The first one is that they can 'see all round' the object. If one imagines a sculpted head for example, then a digital photo will only present a flat 2D profile such as might be found on a postage-stamp. The same head when presented in a holographic form on a plate can be 'turned around' in 3D, and it is possible to see the back of the head as well as the front. Secondly, unlike an ordinary photo, if one breaks the plate into pieces when just a single fragment of the hologram is picked up and a ‘decoding’ laser-beam is then shone through, the whole complete original head-image will emerge – albeit rather degraded in its degree of definition. Thus holograms show this very unintuitive property of the 'whole is contained within each and every part'.
Since QVK's are 'eddies/waves' their wave interference patterns will act according to the holographic principles above. The iFIELD operates like a giant hologram and the Para-pic images discussed earlier do show rather holographic qualities, though we only see them in a 2D format. If one examines a Para-pic closely for example, more and more features may be found in a rather 'fractal-like' fashion (self-similarity maintained at increasing magnifications).


Nature incorporates a 4th Spatial Dimension (5D Space-time)


I have hitherto suggested that not only does 'Nature' possess a 'Perfect Memory' but also that the 'language' of mathematics may give us a very good grasp as to the general nature of the mechanisms that may underpin the self-same memory-stores. The next question to try and address is the one of 'Just where exactly does this CE-Drive mechanism exist?'
One approach to this difficult problem may be explained by this link below:-

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a-quantum-error-correcting-code-20190103/

This is a mathematical approach that shows how the concepts of Space and Time can emerge from consideration of how quantum errors in coding can be corrected. In this essay I find this a useful concept in that it provides a kind of 'placenta-like' mechanism, that can form a 'wall' between the 'Googleplex of Grey' in the dimensionless and formless Aperion and a formed Space-time within it. Only the 'Strings' that have constituents that 'conform' to our Cosmos can 'cross the placenta' (ie, they are error-free), and thus go on to create the 'patterns of matter' that Physics describes via the great beam-colliders that have been built (eg. the Large Hadron Collider).

Since the CE-Drive or iFIELD concept is based upon its creation from and within Aperion this is essentially a quantum physics phenomenon and as such it subtends our normal 3D material existence. It penetrates both 'downwards and inwards' within the smallest particles of matter and 'upwards and outwards' beyond the outer limits of our Cosmos. Essentially the 'Realm of Aperion' inhabits a 4th Dimension of Space, which in turn means that science might see more clearly if it was to consider observed phenomena within the explanatory context of a 5D Space-time (4 Space +1 Time, or 5DSt abbrev.). Continuing this theme it is worth noting that scientists are beginning to consider a 5DSt Cosmos as a possible 'solution' to some difficult paradoxes.

https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/a-5th-dimension-may-explain-the-quantum-interpretation-paradox-d0a4ebe7f48a

Above is a link to an article that expounds this very point for example.
James Beichler has made cogent arguments for many years in support of an embedding of our perceived 4DSt Cosmos within a 5DSt frame, pointing out how the difficult arguments as regards the nature and origins of Dark Energy and Dark Matter that permeate the observed Cosmos can be quite easily resolved if one considers and analyses astronomical observations theoretically within a 5DSt context.

https://webplus.academia.edu/t/gQAt-RevUcfR-nbni8/JamesJimBeichler

It is very difficult for our 3D space conditioned minds to be able to 'see things' in a 4D space context, and the usual example given is that of a 'cube within a cube' – a 'Tesseract' – and examples of this can be found in Google Images. A Tesseract does however illustrate this 'both inwards and outwards' quality that I made earlier.


Our 3D material forms continuously up/download to the 4D iFIELD CE-Drive.
Having outlined the basic concepts of 'Nature's memory-stores', how they are 'built' and 'where they are' it remains finally necessary to try and show some of the mechanisms whereby our 3D world up/downloads information to the iFIELD.

It is a complex topic and in a short text such as this involved detailed discussions must be curtailed. Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have for some years now championed the theory that small microtubules that make up the cytoskeleton can maintain states of quantum computation. A link is given below:-

https://www.academia.edu/102536111/Quantum_computation_in_brain_microtubules_The_Penrose_Hameroff_Orch_OR_model_of_consciousness?rhid=23736438741&swp=rr-rw-wc-100177032&nav_from=337508c4-4379-4c39-bf9a-16cb18055217&rw_pos=17

There is good direct physical evidence both from direct measurements and indirectly from observations of the mechanisms of action of anaesthetics that this is indeed the case. What is crucial here is to understand the unusual physico-chemical properties of water. Water is a unique compound that exhibits very important quantum properties. For the purposes of this article we become interested in its behaviour when it is present as a very thin 'film' - in 2D mode of only some 5-10nM thickness – forming in effect what science calls a 'metamaterial'. 2D metamaterials of many compounds exhibit strange quantum behaviours that are absent when the same compound is examined in bulk form. A good example is 'Graphene' (2D flat molecular sheets of the Carbon compound 'Graphite'), which when twisted very slightly by 1.25deg suddenly exhibit electrical superconductivity – a quantum state. Microtubules are some 10nM in diameter and hence their water contents are effectively '2D' in this context. As a 'metamaterial' then, 2D water films support quantum states of superposition and prolong quantum coherence times as well as allowing for 'soliton formation' (ie. stable standing waves) and may also permit the creation of magnetic monopoles (predicted to exist in water by Paul Dirac 1932). In the case of living cells when these 2D water films (conventionally called 'EZ or interfacial water', but in this text I have changed this term to 'qwater' when discussing 'quantum-level' water interactions), come into contact with electromagnetic fields (EMF's), then there are qwater<>EMF interactions which support the basis of quantum computational processes. It is the ongoing developing science that revolves around this qwater<>EMF interaction effects within living cells that is of very great interest, and it is also most likely to be the mechanism that 'enables' the Para-pic phenomenon to occur at all.

It is at this point that I will point readers to the works and papers of Dirk Meijer and Hans Geesink (M&G) via the link below. These authors have published numerous papers on these topics relating to the interactions of EMF's, water and their allied mechanisms in living cells, especially in relationship to health and disease. These links are but two of the many papers they have published.

https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SzhwcFI2dXRIaXBDSE9ZRmFaSDc2cTB3RS8xOTZEenQvb2JrZDVrajJYQT0tLU1laGZveUxBZWtnblNHOE9JSDFBcXc9PQ==--fd88ff12522278733e74bd97c8bbcf334bae90e8/t/brnNk-ReKXdG2-Q0TST/resource/work/42775731/Water_The_Cradle_of_Life_via_its_Coherent_Quantum_Frequencies?email_work_card=title

https://www.academia.edu/keypass/QzByZkhmeUV0S0dsVE9LVkNKUmpYMFlINzlGNjd6czBEUFRRQndneXdrQT0tLXlMTjJmckZQTENGN2ZvYStjR2kxUEE9PQ==--68c5cd2c50bed30e7a44d7ed2daed43ad51bac84/t/brnNk-RfYe5bk-bcZtaD/resource/work/31875226/Phonon_Guided_Biology_Architecture_of_Life_and_Conscious_Perception_Are_Mediated_by_Toroidal_Coupling_of_Phonon_Photon_and_Electron_Information_Fluxes_at_Discrete_Eigenfrequencies?email_work_card=title

The first major observation they make is that cells are affected by weak EMF's and that these effects can be either beneficial or harmful. The beneficial ('good') frequencies exist as a Platonic harmonious scale, and exposure of cells to EMF's that lie in between these harmonious frequencies (bad) exhibit evidence of degradation in various ways. In short good harmonic EMFs are a positive influence on life, while disharmonic frequencies are damaging, even though the intensity of the EMF's involved is very low. The EMFs interact with 'qwater' present in both microtubules and adjacent to large proteins in the cell cytoplasm to create 'solitons/polaritons' and local coherent quantum field effects that are time-stable. This is all very much along the same lines as the Orch-OR theory put forward by Penrose and Hameroff mentioned earlier.

The second observation that M&G put forward that is relevant to this discussion, is related to the magnetic forces that EMFs produce, known in physics as 'Spin'. The small atomic particles we call Electrons that orbit around atomic nuclei are well known to possess certain fixed properties, notably Charge (-ve), Mass (9.1x10-28g), and Spin (Up or Down). The 'Spin' of Electrons is the force that creates what we are all familiar with as 'Magnetism'. If one is able to symmetrically align all the myriad numbers of electrons present in a bar made of Iron then the familiar bar magnet 'suddenly appears'. If one removes this alignment in some way – by heat perhaps – so that all the electrons lie higgledy-piggledy in random directions then this 'magnetism' disappears, at least on the macroscopic scale. However in fact each and every electron is a tiny 'spinning' magnet on its own, and its 'Up/Down' properties are simply a reflection of the N/S poles that are found in a bar magnet. Spin however has different 'quality' to the familiar one of the small child's table-surface spinning-top. In M&G's papers an electron acts in the fashion of a do-nut like 'torus', which is in effect a hollow ring that then twists itself about (either IN>OUT or OUT>IN) giving rise to its bi-polar N/S force effects. This torus structure of the electron and its 'twisting forces' in turn cause a vortex to form in the quantum superfluid that constitutes the 'Aperion' of the ZPF of quantum physics. This is important since a vortex is a non-dissipating 'eternal eddy/disturbance' and as such can form the basis of a 'memory system'. All this has already been previously discussed as the putative 'QVK's that go to create the 'CE-drive' of the iFIELD.

Electron-spin forces are the basis of the 'keypad' that our 3D world uses to up/download data into the 4D Space of the iFIELD's CE-Drive.

It can be seen that data is held in the iFIELD not as 'patterns of charge' as they are on this lap-top computer's hard drive, but as 'patterns of vortices/eddies' or in the form of 'QVK's as 'knitted patterns', that do not ever 'decay'. In previous essays/books I have used a 'shorthand term' for this concept of a 'coherent quantum localised memory-store'. I have called such a 'knitted-quantum-pattern' an 'iPac' (abbrev. Information Packet), which is simply quicker to type, and one can express details by use of parentheses in brackets. I will amplify this a little further:-
There exists (or so I firmly believe), an 'entity' that I call an 'iPac{ME}'. What is it then? - well it is the combined 'knitted-pattern' of QVK's of all the cells and their individual life-histories that are contained/combine within the coherent quantum field that makes up myself ('ME') that is held in the 4D Space that contains the iFIELD Aperion and its CE-Drive. There is an iPac{YOU}, and an iPac{FROG} or an iPac{FLATWORM}, (more on those later), indeed each and every life-form has its own unique iPac in the iFIELD. It can be seen from this that iPac's are 'patterned-memories' of EMF's held in 4D space (5DSt), and as such they then start to have a very 'familiar ring' to them in one's own memory. Mankind has a very long history of 'acknowledging' (not everyone does) the existence of 'beings of light' or 'spirits' or 'ghosts'. Before any readers who will only consider what might be called 'hard science' completely switch-off at this point I would plead with them to consider what I detail in ensuing paragraphs which show yet more evidence from science about just how EMFs are 'driving' the 'hard matter' components of living cells, and will point the interested reader towards the fascinating work and videos put out by Michael Levin (ML) on YouTube. It is also important to note that iPac's have a 'nested' capability to them, and they can be treated in a similar manner to 'Venn diagrams' from school-time maths. The 'telepathic message' that I detailed above that was transmitted LD<>HDF<>Tina Laurent can be written as iPac{LD Spinal nerve} for example, and apropos of the Jungian concept of 'national supraconsciousness' there is an iPac{English} or iPac{Terran Life}.
I will return to my 'Woolly jumper hat' metaphor for a moment here. The term iPac{ME} can be 'imagined' as a 'complete covering suit', all put together by 'QVK-knitting' that exists in 5DSt. As such then there will exist an iPac{My Hand} for example, which is to be 'imagined' as referring to the 'glove' part of the 'whole knitted suit'. Equally, the early example given in this essay that related to LD's 'trapped nerve' image that was 'telepathed' through space for Tina Laurent to download, was 'part of the back of the woolly jumper/sweater bit of the complete knitted-pattern suit', or equally written as the term iPac{LD; Spinal nerve}.
Science shows that embryogenesis (creatures' shape and form) is 'facilitated' by EMF's in preference to genes (though genes are not 'totally irrelevant')

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XheAMrS8Q1c&list=RDQMjFUGAaRx_JE&start_radio=1

Above is a link to a short video on YouTube put out by ML that should make any viewer's mind boggle when it is seen for the first time.
ML's department at Tuft's University USA researches the process of embryogenesis, which is a term that describes 'the 'mechanisms' whereby single fertilised eggs can actually come to 'know and understand' how to build the 'grown-up' animal form. How do the individual cells of a developing limb 'know' that they must now all 'down tools and knock-off work' when fingernails/claws have all been completed. Who/What 'tells them' that everything is now 'finished'?, is a deep question since a single cell has (apparently) no 'overall knowledge of the whole' in order to be able to regulate its own behaviour accordingly. ML's findings are extremely interesting in the overall context of this short paper and in many ways are giving experimental proof of the existence and actual operation in real life/time of the mechanisms that M&G have delineated.
Readers will need to acquaint themselves with ML's videos in order to get a much fuller picture, but in essence developing simple celled embryos 'follow' or are 'directed' by predetermined 'patterned' EMF's. A 'frog-face' can be revealed (by special ML-lab techniques) as an EMF static-charge pattern in frog embryo cells, long before the actual 'frog-face' appears to the naked eye within the developing tadpole. ML and his science team can manipulate this 'EMF frog-face' by using ion blocking drugs that alter the EMF charges and thus 'software program' a tadpole to grow a complete limb or eye from its belly, or persuade a developing flatworm to grow a 'second head' which is completely functional in all respects (a '2HF').
As a subsidiary point regarding these '2HF's it is worth pointing out that 2HF's will 'breed true'. If one transversely chops a 2HF into halves (upper/lower) then the lower or 'tail section' will regenerate into a complete new individual. A 2HF tail will accordingly grow 2 new heads, while the (rather more boring) upper section will correspondingly grow its own new tail. Now what ML has effectively done in these experiments is to create what any self-respecting naturalist would claim as a 'new species of flatworm', if chance should have ever determined that such a discovery of 2HF's were ever made in the wild. However, there has been no genetic change involved in creating this new 2HF 'species'. 2HF's it seems are 'breeding true' according to the '2HF EMF pattern' that somehow 'every cell in the 2HF tail already knows about'. In fact I think it not unreasonable to state here that these EMF-derived 'frog-face' or '2HF' patterns that ML describes in his YouTube videos are examples of 'iPacs'. ML is demonstrating in his tadpole blastomere the iPac{FROG} as EMF charge patterns. Readers of this essay will already be aware that this particular process has its 'frog-face patterns' stored as quantum-memories in the iFIELD which the tadpole blastomere is now downloading via its 'keypad electron-spin' mechanisms to drive the cellular proteome (which does include genes of course, but may not depend upon them eg. the 2HF's that ML has created) until the complete iPac{FROG} is in 'harmony' and the project of 'building a frog' is finished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WamKZyowX3Q&pp=ygUNbWljaGFlbCBsZXZpbg%3D%3D

At present ML and his Tuft's uni team are in the process of investigating how 'EMF-Frog' static charges patterns can emerge, and how they may be held for future generations and it remains entirely possible – indeed probable - that their conclusions will be very different from those that I have put forward in this essay. However the scientific findings and work that ML and his team are revealing to the wider world really do seem to show 'M&G',s theories actually being 'put into action', and the puzzles that are provided by the need to create 'memory-stores' for ML's embryonic EMF ionic patterns are soluble thanks to ideas involving 4D Space (5D Space-time) from James Beichler and Prof Gremaud (and others). I also feel that ML's 'web of EMF's' that surround his embryonic material accord extremely well with Rupert Sheldrake's long-promoted concept of 'Morphic Fields' and 'Morphic Resonance'. In so many ways one can simply call them all 'synonyms', and ML's 'ghostly frog-face in the blastomere', is its 'Morphic Field of a Frog' as promulgated by Rupert Sheldrake, or an 'iPac{FROG}' in my own 'quantum shorthand', and its properties of 'resonance', 'coherence' and 'memory-store' are in fact of quantum field in their origin and that embryogenesis is really 'quantum-level computational effects' revealing themselves at the macroscopic scale.

It is worth noting here that ML's team have both 'controlled' and 'reverted to normal' rogue cancer cells using purely EMF-derived methods. There is no use of chemotherapy or genomic methods, just the manipulation of the ionic charge channel 'cell software' communications. Both M&G as well as ML make the point that cells 'march in tune' to the 'music' of EMF's. If cells 'escape' from the 'rhythm's beat' then they will go their own sweet way (ie. 'decohere') and pursue their own interests using their own intelligence. We call this process 'Cancer' and it is not necessarily 'just all in the genes', but it can also be a case of 'losing the dance music' in its origins.

Below is a link that reveals how 'pioneer factors' in cells can 'unlock silent genes' and cause cancer. It seems likely that these same 'pioneer factors' also guide embryogenesis. If these same factors can be 'energised' by EMF's then this provides a mechanism whereby EMF and cells can powerfully interact.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-discover-an-epigenetic-key-that-unlocks-common-deadly-cancers/

In a very similar vein the link below shows how the developing form of an embryo can be severely disrupted. The Thalidomide drug disaster led to the birth of babies with severe limb abnormalities (phocomelia) as well as other organs (heart, ears). It took some 60 years of research to fully understand just how the drug achieved its notorious effects. If one reads the article it can be seen once again 'gene unlocking mechanisms' have been blocked, with a consequent interruption of 'process'. Although this in effect a 'blocking effect' as opposed to an 'unlocking one' regarding the earlier example relating to cancer, the 'keys' are very similar, involving these 'signalling' transcription or pioneer factors. If it can be shown that EMF's can 'mobilise or block' these proteins that in turn can switch genes On<>Off, then this would provide valuable insights into how EMF's can influence growth, form and cancers. Such insights might in turn lead to such medical advances as regrowing missing limbs, curing paraplegia and causing cancers to regress or self-destroy (apoptosis).



https://www.dana-farber.org/newsroom/news-releases/2018/after-60-years--scientists-uncover-how-thalidomide-produced-birth-defects/#:~:text=The%20degradation%20of%20SALL4%20interferes,a%20treatment%20for%20morning%20sickness.

There is also this study (link below), that might also 'point in a similar direction' when it comes to the 'mechanisms' that influence inherited epigenetic change.

https://h3africa.org/index.php/2022/02/01/the-rwanda-genocide-left-lasting-marks-on-the-dna-of-traumatized-women-and-their-children/

This is about a paper that refers to an observed phenomenon of an extremely high incidence in emotional behavioural disturbances occurring in the offspring of women who encountered traumatic events during the Rwandan civil war. Essentially what this link does is to indicate good evidence that 'human experience alone' (extremely bad here), can alter DNA in germ cells and thus become a part of 'genetic inheritance'. The big question here though, is to offer some explanation as to what the 'mechanism' might be whereby a 'purely mental event/experience' can cause a material change to inherited genetic material. The only 'reasonable hypothesis' that seems apparent is to argue for 'brain-created EMF's' influencing bodily remote genetic cells via 'quantum resonance' kind of processes occurring in the 'body qwater coherent fields', or something along these lines. Brain cells function by using EMF's and because of this might have the 'power' to 'redirect' DNA via the various mechanisms this essay outlines.
On the - (admittedly rather shaky) – assumption that all of this treatise or hypothesis is at least 'broadly correct' in its general outline does it carry with it all any 'larger philosophical implications'?
I would contend that indeed it all does – and many readers will now start thinking 'Woo-Woo!' - as a complete reflex reaction. I would counsel against this and urge some restraint. This essay is simply a way of stating that there is extremely good evidence emerging from science that 'Nature' uses 'Light' as a way of 'projecting' and 'storing' all 'events' (however small or large), as a 'Permanent Memory-store in 5D Space-time' which is 'out of our own 4DSt-bound ken/sight' of course. For some reason (rarely commented upon in itself) when our familiar 4DSt Cosmos is examined at its smallest levels all the 'rules' change, and 'quantum weirdness' becomes the 'norm'. The answer is I feel quite easy, and it is explained by the fact that we are now getting 'glimpses' of the 'rules of 5D'. The 'border' between 4DSt and 5D Space-time is rather 'fuzzy' as it were. Currently both Quantum-level physics and Astrophysics (the very large or Einstein's Relativity) view all matters from within a 4DSt aspect, and as a consequence the two great theories of physics – The Quantum and Relativity – cannot be made to agree with each other, (one is 'grainy' and the other is 'smooth'), but it might be much more fruitful to include the 'invisible extra one space dimension' as both JB and Prof. Gremaud (and others) have suggested.

I will conclude the first part of this essay with this short plea and it is this:-
Science 'needs' a 4th Dimension of Space (5D Spacetime) as much as Religion needs 'Heaven'. The whole 'concept' is not that 'difficult' and potentially solves a lot of problems not only for both 'sides' of the 'Science<>Religion divide', but it can also explain all the phenomena that are currently put into a mental kind of 'dustbin' and labelled as being 'Paranormal'. In addition it provides an increasingly firm 'evidence-based' intellectual platform for the existence of 'Human Souls' and 'Eternal Life' (for all life-forms).


Scientists are now considering these kinds of ideas much more seriously and I append the link below, which relates to telepathy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7937662/

Para-pics arise in water vapour as a consequence of quantum resonance between the micro-droplets of vapour (which act as 'qwater'), and the 'qwater' present within the living cells of the operator. This in turn causes changes in the outer electron orbits of the vapour cloud molecules and creates fluorescent changes to the incident light rays of the flash and reflect back as colours and form. Black and white 'negatives' of the same Para-pic images suggest on occasion that the actual vapour condensation itself may be controlled by addition/removal of available energy. Rather like Cro-Magnon cave artists, the background may possibly be 'sculpted to outline' before being 'painted in'. However Para-pics may be created in terms of local physics, the process involves information transfer, a 'Mind-over-Matter' phenomenon, and it all takes place in 1/50th sec shutter speeds.


What is 'Reality'?


The 'schema' put forward above essentially maintains that 'Nature' has an iFIELD-based 'in-built memory-store' that is in the form of a 'CE-Drive' (Prof. Gremaud) which is comprised of 'knitted-patterns' of QVK's (Quantum Viking Knots), and that it can be accessed via a 'keyboard' of electron magnetic spin force(s). If this is accepted as a 'working principle' for discussion purposes, then it would seem that certain consequences flow, and I will put down my own personal thoughts on these as follows.

Reality is a description of an 'event' recorded in the iFIELD CE-Drive

The headline I have written above in bold’ letters can be expressed differently as “An 'Event' (E) becomes 'Real' when an iPac{E} is created within the iFIELD”. The view that I am expressing above is rather akin to a kind of 'Turing Machine' that is taking 'the formless possibilities of Aperion' and placing them onto a '3D ticker-tape of Matter', and then uploading the 'keyboard outcomes' via the QVK's of the spin forces of electrons.
I will just add here some 'thoughts' about some finer details as to how 'nature's keyboard' works. A single electron is a 'twisted do-nut' and is in effect a micro-magnet with its N pole sending 'force' into its 'centre' and a S pole emerging from the same. In 1932 Paul Dirac published a paper about 'frustrated spin' whereby in certain atomic configurations of water 'spin-forces' of the electron 'have nowhere to go'. He suggested therefore that 'Nature' may support the existence of 'quasiparticles' called Magnetic Monopoles (MM). Ever since physicists have searched for the actual existence of MM's without success, until very recently when a lab reported success within a complex metamaterial. My thought is simply that for most 'ordinary electrons' their spin component is simply the process of 're-remembering' their own existence. In the case of MM's present in the 2D-qwater however, the N poles 'drive inwards' ie. create the vortex needed for 'uploading' to the iFIELD, and the S MM-poles are correspondingly responsible for 'downloading' from iFIELD 5DSt-based memory-store, as in the suggested iPac{FROG} detailed below. It is possible that MM's are the 'real keyboard' here. It occurs to me that it might be the case that the torus-spin of electrons create wave diffractions within the quantum superfluid which then create the hologram interference patterns, while the MMs act as the creators of the QVK non-decay effects. Since MMs are the consequence of quantum field effects and are thus coherent within living cells, they might in a sense be acting rather like the coherent lasers that create/recover information from the wave diffraction patterns that we use in our hologram technology.
One single spin of an electron creates its 'vortex' in Aperion. A 'vortex' is an 'event' (E) and as such will create its own iPac{E}which is 'recorded'. This process might be the same as that we call 'Time' whereby the 'Future of boundless but unformed Possibility' becomes translated via the 'Now Moment' of a single spin of an electron, into a 'Fixed Past' recorded in the Cosmos. I tend to take the view that it is this 5D Space-time (5DSt)- based 'Construct' that is 'True Reality' rather than the events that we are so familiar with in our own 4DSt surroundings. Our Cosmos is just the 'ticker-tape being read by the machine' as it were, it is the 'translational process in action' that changes 'possibles' into 'actuals'. This hypothesis that I am expressing implies that the 'shortest tick' of 'meaningful' time is to be measured by that amount of time which electron-spin force takes to produce a single 'vortex' in Aperion. Before this vortex-event there was 'no-thing', but after it there is a single 'corresponding' iPac{E} in the iFIELD and there is now a 'difference of pattern' in the iFIELD records and there is now 'no going back'.

What is 'quantum computing' anyway?
Modern engineers are spending a great deal of time, money and effort to build the world's first working and running 'mechanical' computer of a 'useful' size and reliability. It is proving to be a very hard task, but science is making progress, and as I understand it the current 'record' stands at 24 'qubits', that can be made to 'entangle' and 'work together' to produce 'calculated outcomes'. Now while a 24-bit computer might have been impressive back at Bletchley Park in 1943, it does not cut much ice in our modern IT world that uses Petabytes of data when need be. Why then do scientific computer engineers persist in putting in so much effort into these quantum technologies? The easiest answer to this question that is understandable to the non-specialist layman reading this text is to construct a short 'illustrative metaphor', which goes as follows.


You live in 'Flatland' as a '2D person' and you wish to explore and 'solve' the problem of a Maze in front of you (such as can be found at Hampton Court for example). You have just invented this marvellous machine that you call a 'digital computer' that can in practice do 'all the work for you' provided that you simply 'program it with the instructions' about what it has to do. Come the day then, when all is set up, the machine disappears into the entrance of the Maze and starts to map it. It does all this by following each every 'branch' in the Maze in a defined succession as it encounters them, exploring and recording whether the pathways are merely 'dead-ends', or whether they lead onto further branches that need exploring in detail in their own turn. This process continues indefinitely until the centre of the Maze is reached and the program ENDS. Now this whole exercise has saved our '2D Flatlander' a great deal of time and (mental) effort and he/she is quite content.
Now let us imagine a door-to-door salesman knocks at the house and uncovers his 'new product'. “This is our new-fangled quantum computer” is the rep's spiel, “...and it can do your Maze-mapping job in an absolute fraction of the time”. “How on earth can that be possible?” enquires the naturally sceptical 2D Flatlander. “Ah well, we send drones upwards into the air, and simply take photos from the air”, comes the reply. “What? You mean you use an extra dimension of Space?” Exclaims our Flatlander, “...but it's using 3D, and it's just not possible”. For our Cosmos simply change 2D>3D and 3D>4D and similar 'principles' apply. Just as a 'drone photo' taken from the air can 'see the whole Maze' all at once, when compared to those who explore the same Maze from purely ground level, so can '4D quantum computers' see 'all the answers to the 3D problems they encounter all at once' as it were. This property makes quantum computation more powerful by orders of magnitude compared to digital computers, and it is why such devices are under development.
The simple metaphor used above provides a strong 'mental image' about why quantum phenomena have a 5DSt 'flavour' to them. Sir Roger Penrose emphasised this point in his book, 'The Emperor's New Mind' in which he argued that humanity's mathematical capabilities went 'far beyond' those of the rapidly developing digital computers of the time. He pointed out that there was a mathematical theorem(s) called Godel's Undecidability Theorem, which showed that there exist certain mathematical axioms that are inherently unprovable. Roger Penrose then goes on to propose in his text, that if our mind/brains were working as very complicated digital computers (nerve cells flickering 'On<>Off' as it were, just like our computer 'bits'), then they could not even conceive 'the question' let alone 'come up with the answer' as Godel did with his maths. Hence, Penrose's argument runs, our minds must be 'more than just digital', they must be 'quantum' computers.
Now, the 'Maze' in that metaphor that I used above is in effect a 'Mathematical Problem', and from what Godel has shown us is that it appears that 'some Mazes cannot be solved', and that in turn leads me on to consider questions regarding 'the nature of maths' and just what happens when our minds use maths as a way of trying to unravel the mysteries of Nature. My own take on this is that when we 'pose a mathematical problem' from within our 'quantum-mind', we are 'texting a direct question' to the CE-Drive memory-store held in the 5DSt of the iFIELD. When we 'solve' any such problem we effectively 'download the appropriate matching-pattern' that is held in CE-Drive (and practising mathematicians often state that they do regard their insights not so much as 'solutions' but rather as 'discoveries'). What Godel's theorem is telling us is that there are some 'patterns of possibility' that as yet do not exist as 'patterns of Reality' that have been 'recorded' in the iFIELD. It is a way of stating that ”there are 'Mazes' that have 'yet to be built', and this 'new drone machine' cannot describe them to you – even in principle”, if one reverts to the simple metaphor above. This idea also implicitly assumes that for a great many 'Mazes' (mathematical problems), a 'matching answer' is already 'Real' and thus then it becomes a case of 'something put there before us', which in turn then leads us into 'Who?' and 'When' types of questions. These are entirely 'answerable' if human minds are but 'latecomers' to the party – which given the both the age and vast size of the universe seems entirely likely – but they much less so if humanity is indeed 'alone' in the Cosmos. One can use this whole argument in fact to say that in fact Mathematics proves the existence of Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life-forms, although this observation is likely to simply provoke groans.
Nothing written above is ever likely to grace the pages of any serious mathematical treatise, but – for myself at least, and hopefully also any reader – it does provide a helpful kind of 'mental vision' of 'how it is all working', and 'just what they are all talking about' when it all comes to the extremely complex problems of quantum computation.
In recent years a completely new IT technology has arrived upon the scene called 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI). This recent development in electronic chip technology is having a widespread impact in our daily lives, but none of this has anything to do with 'quantum computation' as such. AI technologies make use of and copy the way that nature has built brains, by building connected electronic mesh-works in a similar fashion to those found in neural-nets of brain cells in biology. In essence these electrical networks are built in a horizontal fashion, which are then also placed in a layered manner with vertical connections between the layers. In addition 'nodes' are introduced within these networks that can 'remember' the 'strength of the signals' that arrive at their junctions and then 'pass on or influence' neighbouring nodes accordingly. None of this electronic chip processing is 'quantum computing' in any fashion, what these AI systems do excel at though is 'pattern-recognition'. AI systems are not so much 'programmed by software', as 'taught by exposure to the world'. AI can sort through large amounts of data at speeds and in depths that human faculties cannot match, and as such are invaluable for searching through large piles of 'repeated searching for things', or unveiling 'hidden structures buried within piles of data'.
A good example is the use of AI to 'read mammogram x-ray images' in large national screening programs that look for Breast cancer in its early and more curable stages. The AI system has first to be exposed to mammograms and be 'told' that this image is +ve and equally that one is -ve initially with many hundreds of repeats with different images. After this initial training though an AI system can be given completely 'new' X-ray images, examine them and then simply report back +ve or -ve as the case might be. Modern AI systems used on this particular task are now, if anything, starting to outperform the expert radiology specialists who currently perform the task of reading these X-rays. Since AI can work 24/7 as the term has it, and also never gets bored, or takes a break, then this has the potential to release 'tied-up manpower' for medical services to be used usefully elsewhere. More recently it has been shown that once 'trained' and 'up and running', an AI system can be used to train another and thus one can create kinds of 'school classes' that can output fully trained AI 'personnel' as it were.

When AI is used to 'reflect or regurgitate' certain complex patterns that relate to language or art images for example, the human observer can start to be fooled by the AI responses and interpret them as showing an 'intelligence'. This is currently causing a lot of debate and associated anxiety along the lines of AI 'taking over control of humanity'. While such anxieties are not completely without foundation, my own feeling is that AI is currently nowhere near possessing such a capability – unless of course somebody 'wishes this to be so', and that road – should it ever be taken – does carry risks. To convey some idea of what I am referring to just ponder upon the frequency with which the modern citizen of the IT world is faced with, and the great frustrations and difficulties that arise, when one gets the 'computer-says-no' type of response from faceless bureaucracies, banks or large commercial organisations. While computers make very good 'servants', they also can make terrible 'masters', but only if they 'are allowed to do so'. Large impersonal organisations in our modern societies are only too prone to take the 'lazy route' when faced with some real-life 'clash' between what the client or customer maintains, and what their computer records throw up. AI will be every bit as 'difficult or dangerous' along similar lines in this regard I feel.
Since AI is 'copying real-life natural systems', and also much of this essay is concerned with the evidence to support 'quantum computation' as being the 'fundamental' of life and living, how might one 'reconcile' the two different 'technological approaches' when looking at terrestrial life? My response to this query (right now anyway), is to simply unite the two 'technologies' into one single 'machine'. Here is a link that shows how neuron-nets 'learn and adapt' and something of the AI technology that copies them.

https://scitechdaily.com/free-energy-principle-predicts-self-organized-learning-in-real-neurons/

This interesting link was also posted recently. It shows that scientists can now create non-locality within certain materials and they think it may really help to improve current AI technology. Non-locality is a quantum phenomenon, and it is in a sense a hint that engineers are already working out ways to blend AI pattern-matching ‘skills’, with those of the quantum world.

https://scitechdaily.com/mimicking-the-mind-quantum-material-exhibits-brain-like-non-local-behavior/

It is thought that living cells that contain nuclei and complex internal structures such as mitochondria ('power-houses'), cytoskeleton and ribosomes first appeared at least 2.7 Billion years ago, these are called eukaryotes. They were very probably formed by the process of 'fusion' of the simpler life-forms that preceded them by another 1.4 Bya, which are termed bacteria with subtypes of archaebacteria, and eubacteria. Our planet itself is thought to have been formed/condensed some 5Bya, so in those terms life has been present on Earth for about 80% of its total lifetime. Our bodies are made up of eukaryotes, but over aeons these have differentiated from the original 'single type' into some 200 different kinds of cells, that we call skin, bone, blood, liver, muscle and nerve cells and so forth. These differing kinds of cells are shared in common across most living multicellular forms, and hence when the earliest fossils of 'complete animals' start to appear around 0.6Bya (600 Mya) we can reasonably surmise that the whole process of evolution from a single primaeval ancestor cell towards the complete 'palette' of the different cell types needed to build a body, as well as the mechanism to build it, was by then very much on the way to completion.
Now we know that single cells have 'innate intelligence' both from studies of current single cell organisms such as Amoebae, and also from Michael Levin's work referenced in this essay. I have suggested that this may all in itself be driven by 'qwater-driven' quantum coherence and 'memory-store' kinds of mechanisms. However when cells start to differentiate and hence 'specialise' in their functions/capabilities, nerve cells have a specific importance. Initially they evolved as a 'fast' way of sending signals by 'electric cable' as it were between completely separate sections of very early creatures that have worm-like body plans, and one can see these 'early designs' still at work today by watching the rhythmical contractions of worms or caterpillars as they move along. These very early 'electric wiring patterns' still exist in our bodies today, and it is called the 'Autonomic nervous system' that is responsible for the functioning of our bowels, bladders, intrinsic eye muscles and heart. Soon however, these very early 'mobile tube' designs started to develop other sense organs (probably 'smell' first, closely followed by taste, sight and hearing). Touch and 'pain' are handled by the whole 'body surface/internals' and the signals are sent via the 'older' autonomic nerves, and hence 'precede' the other 4 'head-borne' senses in evolutionary time. As the 'senses' begin to evolve, so do the signalling nerve cells that are associated with them, and a 'knot' of nerves begins to form at the 'leading edge' of these 'primitive worm-tubes' that will eventually form the structure that we call 'a brain'. Now this 'knot' of 'early nerves' is primarily concerned with 'pattern-recognition' functions, rather than 'thinking' as we might term them. It goes along the lines of an initial encounter moment - 'What is that 'smell/taste?' - and then followed by a 'match it up' process with its existing 'memory-store' store and thus access the 'answer of experience' ie. 'Good – it's food' or 'Bad – it's toxic'. This particular function of 'pattern-recognition' is extremely well-served by the neural-net architecture that brains have retained, and it is this aspect that AI 'copies' so well. It can be readily seen that the whole process described earlier in this essay regarding mammography very much parallels this 'early worm' kind of life/experience.
At this point it is interesting to see that science has now has evidence that 'memories' (which are very much a 'pattern-matching exercise') are held within the EMF fields that surround brains, rather than within the neural circuitry as such as the following link shows:-

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/03/memory-leans-more-on-the-brains-electric-field-than-on-neurons/

What this again implies is that the 'Self' is not so much the neurons of our brains, but rather it lies within the EMField that surrounds us. Different individual nerve cell combinations are equally able to 'remember a pattern' provided the differing combinations exhibit the same EMF configuration. Much of this essay has been directed towards the fundamental thesis that ourselves (the combined memories of our life-history), are 'preserved' in the iFIELD via EMF-driven processes. This kind of evidence is very much in favour of these kinds of ideas. It also seems to 'imitate' the way how the EMF-webs of ML's tadpoles are 'remembered' by the developing egg embryos.
The individual components of AI systems are 'inert' as our IT engineers build them. The 'components' that go to make up very similar 'AI networks' in living brains are not 'inert' at all, however. What 'living brains' in fact are is a construct of AI pattern-recognition systems combined with quantum computation within its components, and this is a much more powerful 'machine technology'. It is for this reason that I tend to refrain from taking 'apocalyptic' kinds of views about perceived 'dangers' that could be associated with current AI technology, apart from those already detailed above. When AI starts to be 'merged' with quantum computers though the landscape outlined may change very radically, and 'quantum AI' technology might very well cause great grief to humankind if it is not handled with extreme care when it arrives (as it will).


https://wiredpen.com/2019/03/18/experiment-two-observers-different-realities/

The above link relates to some of the paradoxes that experimental quantum physics throws up. The 'headline' of this article says that two 'quantum observers (O1 and O2)' can experience different realities (R1 and R2 let us say) that relate to the same 'event' (E). How might we view this experimental outcome through the 'lens' of iFIELD memory-store. Well in this scenario E has 'impacted' on O1 in a different way to O2, and this in turn means that the material spin-forces of O1 behave differently to those of O2. Thus O1 will 'upload' their specific spin-pattern as iPac{R1} into the iFIELD that is held in 5DSt. Similarly we encounter an iPac{R2} filed in the CE-Drive records. An 'observer' present in 5DSt can 'see' both iPac{R1} and iPac{R2} simultaneously, and indeed quite probably 'merge the two patterns' if 'need be'. Thus what seems to be an 'irreconcilable' experimental outcome in 4DSt ceases to be so puzzling when analysed from a 5DSt aspect.
While the 'Past' is 'Fixed' and there is no 'going back' it does not mean that the iPac{Information} that is held in 5DSt is totally 'inaccessible' to us mere mortals in 4DSt. 'Nature' has provided the 'keyboard' electron-spin mechanism which acts as a 2-way 'conduit' for information transfer via the QVK type vortices. I have previously written that I think Para-pics 'information download processes utilise quantum resonance between the 'qwater' of vapour microdrops and the 'qwater' of the operator’s own body cells and 'mind-field'. I will now make a short return to Michael Levin's work (ML) and bioelectricity and living cells.
ML's videos show 'EM-based' ghostly 'frog-faces' in existence in frog blastomeres long before an actual 'frog-face' visibly emerges. I have already written that this 'EM-web' that ML describes may in fact be an iPac{FROG} that electron spin forces have already 'selected, and matched and then downloaded' from the iPac{ALL FROGS} held in the quantum iFIELD. Now what is the 'origin' of this iPac{FROG} then, what 'event' created it? Well, the answer has to be 'the life history' of a previous Frog in 4DSt that has been 'recorded' in 5DSt in the iFIELD. In other words a 'dead frog ancestor' as it were, that via its own life-history provided the master iPac{FROG} that the new tadpole is using .
The paragraph that has been written above is in fact just a 're-description' of a 'Paranormal phenomenon', or 'an article of faith' for millions of Buddhists, and what is being discussed here is in fact 're-incarnation by another name'. ML's developing embryos are following the 'patterns of their ancestors', and his team's videos on YouTube show this all in action. Buddhists follow an ancient tradition following the death of a Dalai Lama. They do not just 'appoint' a successor (as the Chinese Communist Party has tried to do), they actually go out and search for his 're-incarnation' in a small child across the country of Tibet. They do not even start to search for some 3-4 years or more, and concentrate their search-net to within a well defined age group (3-4) that possess sufficient language skills to communicate, but equally have not 'forgotten' their pre-incarnation memories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-jcZ1lprg


Above is a link to a famous 'reincarnation case' that involved the early childhood memories and associated behaviours of James Leininger (JL). As a very young infant he started to have childhood 'nightmares' about being shot down in a flaming fighter plane of WW2 vintage. He was able (over time), to give such details as the type of plane he was dying in, and the name of the aircraft carrier from which it was launched. From this kind of detail JLs' parents were able to pin down a specific American Air Force casualty from the Pacific theatre called James Huston (JH). His parents and relatives were still alive and when contacted were able to confirm many corroborating details. Now this essay is not concerned with whether this story is the 'truth' as such, (although it seems to be well beyond 'coincidence', and there are so many equally 'valid examples' that readers can find on the web), but I just wish to focus upon a single small – indeed almost 'trivial' it would seem – detail that was noted. This was the fact that the young JL had quite strikingly similar features to the long-dead JH when looking at surviving images taken before JH's death in action.
Why should this fact have any significance? Well, recollect that the 'iPac{FROG}' EM fields that ML has demonstrated so well in his videos from Tuft's uni on embryogenesis are very much concerned with 'form' and 'function', rather than anything relating to 'dead souls' as such. However this essay is now putting forward the idea that the self-same iPac{MEMORY} systems that we can see operating in the tadpoles at Tuft's are also responsible for the JL<>JH re-incarnation episode. If the video link episode is absolutely true then we would explain it as follows. As a developing embryo JL was 'matched/tuned' to the iPac{Human JH}, as its 'suitable and coherent ancestral pattern'. This new arrival was born in 4DSt and christened as JL, but very unusually had good 'access and retention' to the iPac{JH} held in 5DSt. When JL could speak he was able to recount to his parents traumatic JH 'memories' held in the iFIELD, and hence the astonishment of his 4DSt-bound parents and others. If however this whole process is indeed the 'same one' as ML's experiments are showing in the labs, then we would expect that the iPac{JH} to show itself as 'form' as well as the 'peculiar memories' that are so astounding. The pictorial evidence from this JL<>JH case suggest that facial similarity is indeed strong, and this fact implies that the 'ML-lab shown' mechanisms that are involved with tadpole frog embryos and those of re-incarnation are indeed very much of a kind.
I will also point out here that while frogs have no language and cannot speak of their ancestors to us, they most certainly retain their 'instincts' of 'ancestral behaviour'. Instinctive behaviour looms very large in the study of the natural animal world, and what else is instinct other than 'the memories of the ancestors' that have 'promoted survival' in past times. Just how instinctive behaviours are 'imprinted' into the brains of frogs or other creatures from birth (usually, but not always, without some form of 'tuition'), is a process that modern science has yet to answer in any universally accepted fashion. Science tends to describe, observe, unpick and marvel at instinctive behaviours rather than to try and explain how they 'come to be/exist' in the first place. Instincts have the rather strange quality of 'experience and knowledge downloaded for free' aspect to them, and as such they are a difficult puzzle to explain for naturalists. This concept of 5DSt iPacs operating via quantum-level electron spin-forces that 'drive' the form/hard-wiring of embryonic brains to 'match/tune/cohere' with long-established iFIELD information 'fixed' in 5DSt, may seem very far fetched but it does 'fit the bill' as an explanation, and ML's work does powerfully demonstrate how patterned-EMF's 'drive cell form and function'.
Frogs are much more driven by instinctive behaviour than humans are, but humans are far from 'immune' from 'inherited behavioural traits'. All are familiar with the maternal and 'tribal' instincts that operate in the human psyche and the 'attachment/defence' aspects of human psychology that relate to the territory and culture of their upbringing can be a cause of serious problems when populations migrate in large masses as is well known in the modern world. Even so, the human species shows a great deal more 'flexibility' when it comes to being able to 'break away' from purely 'instinctive' responses to given situations, when compared to other animals, and in fact this ability to 'rise above' the instinctive emotional response is often used as an example of one of the ways that the human intellect is more 'powerful' than other terrestrial species.
We understand little regarding what factors might operate when trying to 'match-up or tune' a new embryo with a 'suitable iPac in store'. For some reason(s) - currently unknown, the human embryonic form of JL was 'well fitted' to download the iPac{JH}, whose previous wartime memories were then so vividly recalled. It seems most likely that the 'answers' (if any) may lie in the specific DNA and other 'proteomic' inherited factors by the embryo concerned. After all no-one seriously anticipates a tadpole to spontaneously download an iPac{BIRD} – as a random example – but it is not necessarily an impossibility that occasional 'cross-matching' might operate at the 'margins' of species' genetic identities, where they are still quite closely related. This kind of effect would be operative in situations where cross-breeding is common, and human domesticated species such as dogs, cats, horses, fish and birds immediately spring to mind.
Other natural conundrums also abound, such as 'How did the Elephant get its trunk?' for example. Science currently teaches us that it is all due to 'genes' (mutation or 'drift') that interact with the environment favourably when it comes down to the reproductive success (and hence survival) of the animal that possesses the 'best fitted genes'. If however one can create a 2HF (two-headed flatworm of ML's labs at Tufts) simply by an alteration of an EMField alone, and absolutely no genetic input then where does this leave the 'Elephant's trunk'? Slightly longer 'noses' acquired by an animal species over a period of thousands of years are 'small beer' when compared to a second completely intact and fully-wired and functional head. Can the iPac{Elephant} (ie.ML's EMField network) have its own innate 'variability' so that form is not 'hard-wired' in any 'absolutely rigid' fashion between generations and that natural selection for form may also operate between generations in a rather more 'random way'. If the 'signalling' transcription factors discussed above are 'switched on' for a bit longer by EMF's then you are born 'bigger' than your fellows, you hence succeed better and after a few thousand years you have changed from a porpoise and you are now a 'whale' as it were. I don't really know the answers to these kinds of questions, but after seeing ML's work at Tuft's uni I am certainly inclined to start asking them.
This iPac 'recycling process' also creates a mechanism for 'evolution/progress'. It works like this in principle. The iPac{YOU} downloads for the first time and lives a 4DSt-bound life (L1) which in turn is recorded as a 'complete suit of knitting' in the CE-Drive of the iFIELD held in 5DSt, which we can label as iPac{YOU; L1}. It then re-incarnates and lives out the next life – '(L2)' – and the process repeats itself. Upon 'return' iPac{L2} is 'melded/harmonised' with extant iPac{YOU;L1} and becomes an iPac{YOU;L1,L2}, in effect 'another row of 'knitting' has been added. This recycling process repeats thousands of times building up a kind of 'knitted garment' or 'DVD video library' as a metaphor. This 'garment/library' of life-histories is a 'Soul' and be written as iPac{YOU; L1...Ln}, whereby the iPac{YOU/L1} is a 'Spirit' (L1='Present Life' or the first of an indefinite series that stretches back in time). If an iPac{L1}'s stay happens to be very much 'constrained' by conforming strictly to instinctive behavioural patterns then each successive 'cycle through 4DSt' very much repeats previous patterns, and there is only very slow change over time. Non-instinctive behaviour though means that an iPac{L1} may quite markedly different from that of iPac{L2} and when they are 'melded/harmonised' in the iFIELD 5DSt the iPac{Soul} changes. It is all very akin to the well known process of 'blending' many individual separate photos of faces to produce 'the ideal/average' or 'composite' face of a man or woman of a certain genetic type. Non-instinctive behaviour, or 'freedom of choice' provides a strong mechanism whereby the iPac{Soul}'s can 'evolve'. It might be worth pondering in this context that our present generation in Western societies is encountering serious problems with obesity even in childhood. If the EM-webnets that ML has shown are indeed iPacs in all but name then it follows that if someone dies obese then their 're-incarnated form' will in its own turn 'tend to greatness'. iPac's retain the 'imprints' of all the cells present, and the more cells (fat), the 'larger' the iPac{L2}, and this 'pattern' will be 'remembered' in 4DSt when the new iPac{L1} starts up.
The real difficulty with accepting this idea just as it is written though, is that it smacks of 'Lamarckism'. After all, circumcised adult men have died for thousands of years, but the new-born children still have to undergo circumcision in their own turn, and they do not arrive 'ready-prepared' as it were. It is worth pointing out though that 'epigenetics' is affecting matters nowadays - ('tagging' DNA in such a way that although genes are not 'altered' as such, but their On/Off operations are changed). Imagine placing 'Blue-Tac' over the holes of the paper rolls that were used to work those old 'Pianolas'. If one does this then the Pianola's 'written paper-roll tune' is very much changed. However as this link below indicates, modern 'epigenetics' is now 'allowing' both Lamarckian and Darwinian evolutionary processes to 'co-exist' as it were.

https://bmcmedgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2350-11-73

It would seem then, that somehow the tendency to 'fatness' is being passed on extremely rapidly and much faster than DNA gene mutations as such could explain. Epigenetic tagging is the most likely causal mechanism it would appear, but the puzzle remains as to just what process actually puts the 'tag' into place? It is worth mentioning here that height has also varied in populations over time. Stone-age hunter-gatherer males averaged around 6ft, this average shrank down to around 5ft 4in in Roman times, roughly 'held steady' through the mediaeval period, was 5ft 6in for the average WW1 recruit (UK), rising to 5ft 10in for WW2. Dutch men have increased in height nearly 8in in the past 160 years, but their American counterparts have only increased by 2.3in over the same period. There is also the matter of the very strange 'Hobbit' skeletons evidence that has been uncovered on Flores island in Indonesia. All these 'changes of form' are well documented, but the processes that underpin these observed changes are much less well understood. It is 'too rapid' it would seem for genetic mutation/drift to be operating, and it seems quite reasonable to surmise that the focus point of action for all of this might well be operating during embryogenesis, and hence involving ML's 'EMF web-nets' as detailed above. Any science-based evidence that proved that some kind of EMF<>epigenetic tag linking mechanism does exist in nature would be invaluable, it seems to me.
A web-search on the topic of 'interaction' between EMF's and cell transcription factors threw up two links. The first one (below) deals with the general effects of EMFs and cell metabolism. It is very comprehensive and it details much evidence about how EMF's influence the cell and cell division:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9627210/

The second one (below) refers to a Patent for technology that actually claims to 'influence' transcription factors (among other aspects of cell metabolism) via EMF's. I have no idea though as to the 'development' and 'effectiveness' of any such technology.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050059153A1/en

It can easily be seen that this iFIELD-based 'Nature's memory' hypothesis has many philosophical 'reverberations' further down the line when one stops to think about it a little bit more, and they all have far-reaching effects upon humanity's own 'Philosophies of Existence'. Although some of this essay has dealt with religious 'tenets' in the case of Buddhism (very favourably), I do not propose to make any attempt to examine other widely-held religions through this 5DSt-based 'lens' of 'Nature's memory-store', right now.
One point worth making I feel is that 'invoking an extra Dimension of Space (4th)' implies a philosophical 'Dualism' within the workings of Nature. Science is firmly 'Monist' in its approach to difficult problems such as consciousness, firmly rejecting any explanations that involve 'the ghost in the machine'. The current prevailing ideas of Science are created with the firm conviction that all the answers to such conundrums lie firmly within the 'ambit of the machine itself'. However, if it should prove to be the case that the 'machine itself' is created/remembered/operated by laws of Nature that reside within a higher dimension, then of course there is indeed 'a ghost'.
I illustrate all this by using another metaphor. In this case our 'body machine' is a watch. Modern science currently very much goes down the lines of saying - “If we can only uncover each and every part of this machine, and just figure out how they all fit together exactly, then a complete working watch will 'emerge' and function perfectly. In fact, in principle once this knowledge is obtained it may become possible to mend a broken watch pretty much regardless of what has broken, as long as the damage is not too extensive”. This is a perfectly reasonable 'monist' watch/clock maker's philosophy given the prevailing understandings of 14th-19th centuries. However in more recent times quartz crystal watch designs are now very common and these 'keep time' by downloading accurate time data via invisible radio signals linked to very accurate 'master clocks' that keep accurate time via atomic resonance-based mechanisms. No amount of 'dissecting' quartz watches into their components will 'make them work properly' without an understanding of the 'invisible radio signals' that are driving them. Thus it would seem that modern biochemistry is still currently very much 'confined' to the 'hand-wound' watch kind of model. What Michael Kevin is showing us is that in fact living cells are rather more 'similar' to the modern quartz watch, and that 'invisible mechanisms' are also of great import when it comes to achieving a 'complete understanding'. The essay written above is thus 'Dualist' in its approach using both 3D and 4D space dimensions in its descriptive approach. However, I will finish this essay by making the following observation:-



The 'nested nature' that iPacs possess within the CE-Drive of the iFIELD predict that there will exist the 'iPac{ABSOLUTE ALL}'. Such an iPac has long been 'recognised and named' by humanity. Science will call such an iPac 'The Great Observer/Designer', the less informed of us mortals use the term 'GOD' or 'ALLAH' as the case may be. In fact we are all 'small parcels' of GOD busily 'godding away' at our 3D 'Turing ticker-tape' playing our small parts in creating 'REALITY' in 5DSt. As such each and every person is 'loved' and is most certainly 'never forgotten'. It is all 'written in the 'Rules of Nature' and it is all there to be seen for any who care to take the time to look.


</div>