To infinity – and beyond! – A step sideways of reality

Of simple journalists and subjective infinities

There is an interesting quote that Albert Einstein said:

Two things are infinite – the universe and the stupidity of humans, though I’m not sure when it comes to the universe.

This statement amused me in my earlier years – and still today! However, the reason now is different and less arrogant and it is written down somewhere in this rather long article. Take your time, go fetch a glass of red wine and make yourself comfortable. This text is damn long and I didn’t want to cut it on purpose. Take it as a test for your own dopamine. Read a part of it every day, if time is not “available”. This article was one of my biggest mental challenges up until now. After reading this there should be some possible reactions:

1. You don’t understand a word, think I’m crazy and check the newest tweets on Facebook
2. You drink your 5. glass of wine. Life is beautiful
3. You start to think about it
4. You get a mix of ecstasy and sickness
5. You begin to transfer the thoughts of this article on other systems and try to put it to a subjective test

The head on my shoulders is rather simple. At this moment, my greatest wish is to sit next to a sea and to relax while fishing – and to share this moment of peace (or equilibrium) with some amazing people. What I want to tell you with that is that every assumption, every thought and theory in this text comes from a simple mind that is able to make mistakes. Which is the reason why I like it. Also, I am certain that those self-proclaimed additional thoughts and findings that I added to the picture of great minds are not new (to them, or others).

Every personal assumption (some are not written down) and every knowledge that is based on this article came from a few people, to whom I am immensely grateful. Dr. Jack Kruse for a massive change of my perspective. Alexander Wunsch for an incredible book, his thoughts and knowledge about light and for his loving personality. Itzhak Bentov and Nassim Haramein for their infinite milestones. Moshe Kastiel for his connection to the human body through osteopathy.

Gratefulness is a rare good these days. We should use it way more often.

Note: Even though this article projects e.g. time and space onto subjective infinities through theoretic assumptions, it doesn’t affect our system/reality that is fixed through time, space and gravitation. This was made clear in my point of view through Nassim Haramein and my knowledge is way too small in this area to question consisting laws. It doesn’t attack the existing laws of human logic, but rather tries to take a look over the horizon of consciousness.

Brain-FAQ summary:

• Form/complexity = function = information = energy = change/imbalance = consciousness
• An infinite nonequilibrium (small or big) becomes a subjective infinite equilibrium
• Do we live in infinities, limited by our consciousness?
• Time becomes faster or slower, depending on space
• Does this explain Schrödinger’s cat and electron tunneling?
• Does this explain “action at a spooky distance”?
• The eye slows down light and creates mass/reality – is this however the whole story?
• Is it possible to compare atoms with humans and planets – depending of time/space? Can we project this comparison even further in both directions?
• What does this mean for us?

The first equation: From 2 to 6

Convictions are a subjective reality. They exist in our mind until we change them ourselves.

My conviction for a long time was reduced to the following equation:

Structure = function

Actually, I was pretty damn happy with it and found “proof” in many areas e.g. biochemistry, biophysics, osteopathy and so on. My knowledge (or conviction) to this point however was about to distance itself a little bit sideways of reality. After reading Itzhak Bentov “stalking the wild pendulum”, recommended by Alexander Wunsch and watching Nassim Haramein “crossing the event horizon”, to be precise.

After this, my equation looked like the following (and I will explain why):

Structure/form/complexity = function = information = energy = imbalance/change = consciousness

Combined with the following: An infinite nonequilibrium (small or big) becomes a subjective infinite equilibrium (I’ll explain that too).

Also: Infinities can only be subjective. The moment something that formerly has been subjectively infinite gets measured, it gets defined by space, time, mass, form, gravitation etc. (I’ll explain that too…)

Boundaries of our consciousness are e.g. the speed of light, or our maximal imaginable space of the universe (or other spaces).

At this point, many will already look a little confused. It already sounds pretty crazy, right? Don’t worry – I will explain everything step by step. The only thing you need is a little creativity, don’t panic, a book (stalking the wild pendulum) and a youtube-video: Nassmin Haramein: Crossing the event horizon.

Most importantly though:

A glass of milk.

The second equation: From 6 to infinity

First, I should give the equation probably a little bit of form in order to be able to visualize it.

An equation only tells you, that on both sides there has to be the same amount/number of – something. So, if you increase the complexity/structure/form, you also have to increase the amount of possible reactions, actions and possibilities (functions). For every equation, I will use visualizations in order to imagine it. This way I am able to keep it simple, even though it forces me to leave some details up to the reader. Or just watch the videos and read the book I mentioned.

Each system has a certain value of complexity and therefore a comparable value of possibilities to react to something (a stimulus). Let me illustrate this with an example:

Through the interaction with a photon (for example light), an electron reacts with a raised energetic (excited) state.

Using a comparable ray of light, a person would feel good, pull off his shirt, start to swear because its hot, smear on sun cream, and so on.

Did you ever hear an electron swear?

Increased complexity and increased ability to respond or function will allow a higher amount of information to be stored. While an electron carries certain information through its vibrations, a complex of water molecules in a structured state can store or transfer more of it.The totality of a human being and its complexity may well be able to do a little more. We can make fire, make wars, feel love and watch Netflix. Everything still pretty easy up to this point, right?

Regarding energy, it might be a little trickier to keep it simple. For some readers, this equation may be simple to understand, but it should remain generally understood for everyone.

Let us take the example of mitochondrial evolution for this. While we were nothing but a soup of bacteria in a primeval sea, a more complex system emerged from a symbiosis of some of our billions of ancient ancestors. Individual systems merged and developed further. Mitochondria in cells that could fuel the entire system with massive energy. The development of more complex systems allowed the implementation of more energy.

The more complex a structure, the more information, greater functionality and higher energy can be utilized or converted.

This may be a good time for a couple of readers to take break – because from now on, it becomes really infinitely weird.

The third equation: From infinity to a glass of milk

Why is there “imbalance / change” in the equation mentioned above? What do I mean by that? This point was given to me by a man by the name of Itzhak Bentov.

In his opinion, the absolute (the sum of everything, the creator – one may call it as you will) is an infinitely great quantity. All knowledge, any complexity, the entire consciousness of everything there is. Thereof an absolute infinity. Such a great quantity of everything that we cannot describe it otherwise than with the word infinite. Now I am not very religious, but rather rational. His assumption and description may sound quite amusing and I at least had the same opinion, until Nassim Haramein fell into the boat. We’ll talk about that in a minute.

Itzhak described the absolute pictorially as an infinite sea, whose surface appears smooth to us (infinitely smooth). As an absolute silence and depth that includes everything, if you want.

The problem: Where is the infinite amount of energy and possibilities?

The answer followed:

Imagine that the infinitely smooth surface of the ocean was to actually form waves of energy on its surface. These waves however were infinitely small and charged with infinite potential energy. The only reason for us not to recognize the imbalance created by these waves, was simply that it was infinitely small and looked like a quiet surface for us. In reality, the entire surface of the absolute was brimming with energy, information, function, complexity and yes – also an infinite imbalance.

Thus, while the absolute „sea“ was infinitely great / deep and in equilibrium, it was at the same time infinitely small and in infinite change / unrest / imbalance. It was absolute infinity. Absolutely big and small from every perspective.

Thesis: If something is not subjectively absolute (infinite), its imbalance is thus visible and all other parts of the equations measurable.

This was my first personal assumption which I mentioned earlier. According to this information, an infinite imbalance (the waves of the absolute) had to become an equilibrium. In addition – making it an absolute infinity – this had to go in both directions.

Time for a glass of milk!

When we pour milk into a glass and look at it content, we think of one thing.

White!

Well, okay – apart from that.

The beauty of the milk is that it somehow appears in balance. It is white everywhere and fairly similar. But if we were to approach the white substance with an imaginary microscope, we would see a lot of atomic unrest in it. The subjective equilibrium of the milk was thus taken away. For the naked eye, the atomic confusion is infinitely small and subjectively imperceptible – thus it appears to be in equilibrium.

 Another example:

If I were to ask whether the Universe would spread equally in all directions, what would be the answer?

Um, I think so?

Its extent would be subjectively equal. We cannot grasp it with our consciousness as it is wa(aaa)y too big. If we were to go into an imaginary super amazing unending-foot-view, we would be able to define and limit it. The universe would be (possibly) limited and its spell would be lifted as fast as that of white milk in equilibrium.

So much about immensities, imbalances and milky ways. Please keep this in mind. This becomes infinitely important later (haha).

The fourth equation: From a glass of milk to consciousness

People who we would describe as esoteric, might perhaps be excited at this part of the article and start some weird rituals. While I pay my full respect to serious esotericism (another subject), I would like to use the word „intuition“ in order to better describe „consciousness“. This is not really true, since intuition is only a part of consciousness from a personal point of view – but it helps to make it understandable.

A cow would probably never get a massive intuitive inspiration. Sometimes people get very weird knowledge of the future – let me give you an example: Someone was standing in front of a pendulum clock and at the tender age of around 18 years she would get the definite information that she would have two children (one with the name Philip, the other with the name Moritz – true story). We would notice someone in the subway and we would look at each other at exact the same time. Somebody would enter the room and we would feel „intuitively“ that the person is in a good mood, sad, interesting, boring, etc.

All of this is described by us as something we call intuitive consciousness. At least Itzhak describes it like that – and I would like to agree with that. From my point of view, it is similar to the ability to capture and perceive information from the environment at instant speed (in real time, a strange word) without “wasting” a thought – or rather, filtering it through personal reality. It is a very logical and practical thing. You just know things. You just feel stuff. As if the knowledge had always been there and completely logical. Like a piece of a puzzle that falls into its place. Bingo!

It may well be that the ability to have such a consciousness is dependent on the complexity, change, energy, information and functionality of systems (people). Ingenious researchers very often finally got their solutions for complex questions exactly this way. If we develop into more complex systems (or improve other parts of the equation), our consciousness could increase, and vice versa. Itzhak points to meditation and its ability to improve our consciousness. Possible. At the moment, I feel very strange / bad / sick when I meditate. Perhaps because of too much information? At the very least, this article would be a pretty powerful weapon in order to persuade people to meditate – and also a rather crazy one.

That was quite a bit of text. Take a mental break if needed. The question of whether we live in infinities, which are limited by our perception, presumably needs a head with sufficient – energy?

The fifth equation: From consciousness to the boundaries of perception

Some things up to this point might be intuitively (heh) a bit wobbly and not enough proven from your perspective and I would totally agree with you. While I had used Itzhak Bentov’s work as my main support up to this point, it is now time to get Nassim Haramein onto the field. In his video on YouTube „Crossing the event horizon“ he put empty space to the test. Some of you may have already heard that we consist of 99% „nothing“ – vacuum (which doesn’t help to lose weight apparently).

The question Nassim asked was simple: For real?

While I would like to suggest to everyone, to watch the first and second part (all are worth seeing) of his lecture, I’ll try to summarize the critical points for this article as good as I can:

Nassim showed repeating patterns (fractals) that reverberated into every area of ​​our existence at consistent intervals (fractal systems are probably known to some of you). In the same way as the sun with its planets resembles atoms – only on a much more fundamental basis which allows the assumption that these patterns (64-tetrahedrons) spread infinitely in both directions at equal distances. If this were true (and Nassim is a very smart physicist to say the least), there would be no limits to structure, matter (black holes?), Information, energy, balance (infinite imbalance) and consciousness in both directions. In the last couple of years Nassim Haramein had proven mathematically, among other things, that protons are subject to the laws of black holes, and that each proton (by calculations with Planck’s distances) has the exact same volume or rather “amount of information” or mass as our universe. Seriously – such super-accurate calculations getting the exact same numbers is a little exaggerated to be just a simple coincidence, right?

Now I had a problem! While the explanations and conclusions of Nassim were incredibly exciting and understandable (he explains that way better than I ever possibly could), we still lived in a rather real and solid world with borders, right? How come?

Subjective limits of perception and definition were perhaps the answer for why infinity was partly visible – even became tangible – and invisible, inconceivable on the other hand (99.99999 …%). And I will try to exactly describe this from my point of view.

The sixth equation: From the boundaries of perception to the existence of space and time

The headline sounds rather overwhelming, I know. Should someone ask me the next time, what I’m thinking about – I’ll answer exactly that. But do not worry – even I could understand this and my complexity is quite limited (I should stop with these jokes). And I must admit that this point was one of the hardest nuts to crack ever.

Remember the glass of milk. When we reach our limits of perception, we experience a subjective balance. If we penetrate deeper via progress, we discover ever smaller components (or larger ones: For a time, the earth was a disc, then it was a sphere and the center of everything, then a part of the solar system that became a part of the universe and so on – got it?).

If we pinpoint the value „consciousness“ with a fixed number (humans have a subjective limit of their consciousness), all other components are also fixed. It should be noted that my own consciousness is not enough to describe consciousness adequately – but I think everyone should intuitively know what I mean.

Once we determine something through our perception (fix it with our limited consciousness), it is defined and restricted – but how, or in what?

Thanks, Dr. Jack Kruse.

The answer would be in space (gravitation) and time. For example: As soon as something is in or under the range of the speed of light, we can perceive it. That way, we give the system/energy/information a fixed value – we define it by our perception. Transferred to the equation E = m • c² and according to the interpretation of it by Dr. Jack Kruse mass gets created when the speed slows down (Jack showed that the eye was able to slow down light and create mass out of it – which I found indescribable). In his lecture, he shared this information with the audience and I almost fell off the chair. By slowing light (EMF / energy / information) through the eye, energy becomes matter. Does energy thus enter the range of subjective perception?

It should be noted that for several years I was already aware of the fact that any „solid“ matter – as … perceptible …  as it may be, is nothing more than vacuum and energy. It was made pretty clear by Nassim that the vacuum is nothing more than infinite “matter” – wait – what’s matter again?

Damn, my head hurts now.

But is it merely the eye that forms our reality, or is it our entire perception? From my point of view, we give a potential infinity – in which we live according to Itzhak and Nassim – definite boundaries by defining space, gravitaton and time through our limited consciousness. The result is visible and tangible matter (imbalance). Everything that is outside of our subjective or possible (technology) perception also exists, we just cannot perceive it – just as the confusion in a glass of milk actually does not exist for us – until we can perceive it. Like the 99.999999% vacuum, which does not exist for us – because it is in a state of subjective infinity and balance, which we cannot define. You could say that we get an infinitely small (0.0000….1%) part of real(?) reality around us. That reminds me of Jack Kruse: “If you believe a half-truth you get a full lie”. And even with it I am greatly overstrained most of the time …

We define matter / mass / energy with a visible value by creating a subjective reality of time (or space). As soon as we can define a potential infinity, it loses its infinite potential – but we can „work“ with it. Wait a moment. How insane is that?

How? According to Itzhak, through our consciousness.

Examples? Sure!

Every one of us has certainly been dreaming at least once in his life while sleeping. How does subjective time pass as we sleep? What realities do define our dreams? Isn’t everything possible? Distances immediately bridged? In addition to meditation, conscious dreaming could have a tremendous potential (Trend: From bio- to infinity-hacking?).

As a side note, why can we remember the past, feel it and do with it, what we want? Where are these thoughts stored? Why can we change them and why can we access them? Please explain this to me (without this text).

Let’s have a look at quantum physics:

Ever heard of Schrödinger’s cat? If we put a cat with a capsule of poison in a room that we cannot look into, the cat is alive and dead at the same time. We do not know it and cannot perceive it. This refers to the wave / particle duality of quantum physics. If small particles are observed, they behave like particles. If one does not look and does not put them in a perceptible subjective reality, they make every possible nonsense at the same time. This has fascinated me for years.

Even more quantum sidekicks!

Albert Einstein was rather unpleasantly surprised to find that photons could transmit information at a higher speed than that of light. “Action at a spooky distance”. What if the communication would take place in an area that was smaller than our perception and thus in an area that is not perceivable for us? God actually does not roll dices. He only plays outside of our consciousness.

But I better explain this somewhat more precisely.

The seventh equation: From the existence of space and time to expansion and reduction to infinities

In the previous section I described the limitation of the infinite by our perception. Our instruments were the subjective perception of space and time (and possibly gravitation?). In his book, Itzhak Bentov had dropped important information that had led me to the examples from quantum physics:

If space expands, time slows down. If space becomes smaller, time is accelerated. According to Albert Einstein, speed is also affected. If this is true, it would explain how photons communicate faster than with the speed of light. If we go deeper into the non-perceptible, speed from there on should be above the limits of the speed of light, so that the limits of our perceptible time / reality would break and lead to a (subjectively perceived) immediate communication over a completely freely selectable space. This would make „action at a spooky distance“ no longer spooky – but completely logical. If there is no subjective time working as orientation, space becomes relative and velocities subjectively infinite.

This is hard to grasp, right? Well yeah, that’s the point.

Could we ever measure it? Yes and no – and this for me is the most exciting part. While you are reading this, there are measurements of velocities with 64 times the speed of light. One might say that we use machines/technologies to expand our consciousness. If we were to try to implement this information into ourselves and actually try to understand it, we would get overpowered and unable to understand it (imagine 64 times the speed of light…). Technology would be our way to increase our consciousness, which would have to challenge infinities each time (fractal structures).

The developments are huge each time (gravitational technology is being discussed and successful experiments with vacuum as a driving force are being experimented on) – but we would never reach the true infinite – this would not be measurable and only reachable through our consciousness – right, Itzhak?

If this is the case, an immensely pronounced awareness would make it possible to have access to a correspondingly pronounced knowledge (information). Assuming all other components of the equation are equally developed (if I were given the energy of the sun, I would probably be somewhat blown away…)

This means that technology is our way to force greater and lesser infinities into our reality – from their infinite fractal balance out into a kind of imbalance (tied to other rules). Fractals also exist in our reality amazingly often. Repeating patterns of nature are well known.

Think about the structure of water according to Gerald Pollack. The transfer of energy / information is massively increased as soon as water molecules enter a structured (EZ) form with polarities (positive / negative – that would be another topic) in our bodies – and no I am not a big fan of water, which is sold in a structured way. The reason? Well, I was kindly reminded of the important detail that stored information can be both good and bad for us. What structure / information do you drink? And based on everything I’ve just gathered here; this line of thought is by no means dubious (structure = information).

It could also mean that fractal technologies must have enormous potential for almost all areas. Both for the stability (the balance?) of humanity and thus for their health, as well as the stability of structures and so on. That would be a personal speculation now. However, coherence is quite obviously an incredibly powerful thing!

Oh – and by the way, Nassim combines the physics of the great with that of the very small (quantum physics) through his work. That was one of the biggest problems of modern physics. Humongous chapeau, Nassim. Really, “Bra” (he lives in Hawaii).

From atoms to human beings, to planets: unserious fractal design?

Note: This text is only an amusing thought, that came to me by chance.

If we were to compare atoms and solar systems, both of them might obey the same laws (which I do not know), only in a completely different field of space, scale and time (e.g. planets many times slower).

What if you would compare humans with atoms? This thought occurred to me during a class in osteopathy, while I watched the teacher “transferring” information to his students via soundwaves (words). If we were to sit in a room and talk to one another, we could imagine the connections that would allow the transfer of information (etc.) and how we would influence each other (like molecules?). There are different stages of communication and transmission of information (compare it to sigma and pi bonds). We can „feel“ that someone is happy (weak level of connection – Pi bonds) – but if this someone tells us that he is happy (strong level of communication through soundwaves – sigma bonds) we understand it loud and clear.

We communicate, interact, compete – like in the “smaller” world. The complexity would be – as compared with atoms – probably subjectively larger and there would be stronger individuality (maybe not?).

Things would subjectively go much slower compared to the small „reality“ of atoms, but much faster compared to the world of planets, galaxies, and the universe…s? At least this would correspond to a fractal design. Why are we all different, then? Through fixed perception and consciousness however, fractal patterns may be forced to imbalances and away from fixed fractal design and total equality/harmony (individuality? Sheesh –  now it becomes difficult).

Thanks, Nassim for this inspiration.

Context:

What does that mean for us? It could mean that strange encounters, experiences, states and other perceptions with a short (conscious or unconscious) change of our reality (don’t do drugs) would be quite possible. If we return back to the former state of “limitation”, our normal reality wouldn’t be able to process this information and would be overburdened in a certain sense.

If Nassim is right that everything is based on fractal systems, there is always a superordinate entity (e.g. food intolerance / bacterial infection, immune system, CNS, …?), but what happens, when you assume that limited consciousness leads to imbalances via forced definition (Itzhak)? It would explain how we could influence our environment and even ourselves on the epigenetic level through thought (information). It would not rule out the possibility (on a legitimate level) that we are triggering certain things (energy) in us and our reality through a conscious and coherent desire. It would explain why you sometimes feel things – for example, how an important person to you experiences something good / bad over a long distance. That a connection to everything exists (statement by Itzhak, as well as Nassim and both views are absolutely solid) and that one could easily „feel“ another person at far distances. Without the influence of time. Even from the past or the future – depending on your own developed awareness and the limits of perception. At infinity, time and space are no longer part of the equation. My thought would be something like this:

Expansion of space (or movement of energy/change/etc. in space) = time / speed

If speed becomes infinite, space and time are no longer relevant, right?

If space becomes infinite, time expands with it into infinity and there would be a subjective standstill of movement. Subjectively, since an absolute infinity must be infinitely large and small from every point of view in all directions. Do not try to imagine that.

Actually, this is stuff for an extremely thick book with an enormous amount of text that someone could (should) write. To be honest, all this information is already distributed throughout the world wide web, and the only thing I’ve done from my perspective in this article was to join these points and make a few additional assumptions. This saves me a lot of work in order to prove it (which I couldn’t but I do think that I do get the meaning of it). This information should be accessible to everyone who wants to read it and Nassim has a website called resonance.is if you want to read/see more.

Much more exciting is whether these theories are truly right (they look like they are, which is bonkers). Much more exciting is, however, what one could make with this knowledge. Nassim has been discussing the possibilities of progress into only one single further fractal plane for several years – and shows amazing results (imagine you could use gravitation). The next fractal step? This would knock out my boundaries of perception. But that’s actually alright. That way possibilities remain infinitely small and large at the same time.

Thank you for reading to this point and I am glad to have shared this article with you.

P.S. How do I put love into this equation? Coherence? Resonance? Never mind, I’ll stop for now.