Mike's commentary · Seth Speaks, Chapter 16

The "Introduction" and "Chapter Highlights" for this chapter were summarized by an AI editor based on the main text below; they are not words spoken by Mike during his lectures. The main text comes from Mike's commentary, and the blockquotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).

Guide

This chapter revolves around "systems of probability": every thought and every unchosen action is actually realized in other realities; psychic acts are the essence of reality. Probable selves, probable earths, and probable gods exist simultaneously, and the soul is a multidimensional process of becoming. All systems of reality exist at once and are open to one another, and probable selves communicate through dreams, inspiration, and telepathy. Physical atoms also exist simultaneously in different systems, and past, present, and future all occur at once; time is only an illusion.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Every thought and unchosen action is actually realized in other probable realities.
• Psychic action is the essence of reality; physical reality is only a selected portion of what is perceived.
• Probable selves, probable earths, and probable gods exist simultaneously; the soul is a multidimensional process of becoming.
• All systems of reality exist simultaneously and are open to one another; probable selves communicate with each other through dreams, inspiration, and telepathy.
• Atoms and matter exist simultaneously in different systems; past, present, and future occur at once, and time is only an illusion.

Main Text

Systems of Probability, People, and Gods

This part continues from the end of the previous Session 565. Session 565 was actually quite short, and then he went on to begin the next chapter. The title of the next chapter was already written -- "Probable Systems, Men, and Gods." From this chapter onward, we enter a part of Seth that is relatively deep and difficult. The depth and difficulty of these next few chapters are much higher than the earlier ones, so everyone, don't be impatient. I will explain this content bit by bit to help everyone gain a better understanding.

The Diversity of Action and Probability

At any given moment in your daily life, you have a diversity of choices of action.

We go do this thing or that thing; some are trivial, some are extremely important. For example, deciding whether to work or continue with graduate school is a very important decision; while some are very trivial, like whether to go get a drink of water or not. For any action you have a diversity of choices -- you can choose to sneeze or not sneeze, cough or not cough, or walk to the window, walk toward the door, scratch your elbow; or you can rescue a drowning child, or learn something new; or you can choose suicide or choose to harm others, or endure insult -- these are all your choices.

From our human perspective, reality seems to be composed of those actions you have chosen. You think reality is the actual, real world, made up of the connections between those actions we have chosen. Those actions we have denied are simply overlooked. For example, if in your life you did not choose to study abroad, then the matter of studying abroad has already been denied by you and did not happen, so the path not chosen seems to be a "non-action." But in fact, every thought is realized, and every probability is explored.

Physical reality appears to be made up of a series of physical actions.

We think our physical world is composed of strings of events -- actions plus events. Since this is your usual standard for judging reality, then nonphysical actions -- that is, actions that have not been physicalized, not concretized in the three-dimensional world, things that are merely a thought -- usually escape your attention, consideration, and judgment. Those actions we did not choose escape the range of our attention, and we think the thought just flashed by.

The Example of the Ringing Telephone

He gave an example. While you are reading this book, your telephone rings, and a friend asks you to meet him at five o'clock. You are there considering -- he says on the phone, let's meet up later, meet at five o'clock. You haven't seen this old friend in a long time, so you are there thinking it over. In your mind, you see yourself as having three choices: the first is to say no and stay home; the second is to say "I'm not going," but go somewhere else instead, go meet someone else, or go shopping; the third is to say "Sure," and go on time. Suppose you have a range of three choices.

The following sentence is very important:

Now in the moment of your consideration, all of these probable actions have a reality.

At the very moment you are considering these three probabilities, all three of these probabilities begin to unfold in their own respective realities. They are all capable of being concretely realized. Before you make your decision, each of these probable actions is equally feasible. Then you choose only one of them, and through your choice, through your decision, one of the three becomes a concrete event.

This event is accepted by you as part of the series of events that form your normal life. For example, if you choose to go meet him, this matter becomes something that actually happened in your life, and you consider it part of your life. That evening at five o'clock, you met with your friend; and the matter of your choosing not to meet and staying home -- in your life you think it did not happen, it was just a thought of yours. In fact, it already happened.

Yet the other probable actions remain just as feasible. Although you did not choose them and thus did not cause them to be concretely realized, they are still just as valid as the event you chose to accept, and they were carried out.

The things you did not choose -- you think they were never done, never carried out. But he says they were carried out just as truly as the thing you chose to do.

The Emotional Charge of Rejected Actions

If there is a strong emotional charge behind a rejected probable action, it may even have greater validity than the action you chose. This is a very interesting point.

For example, suppose a boyfriend and girlfriend have a fight and want to break up. At that moment, in real life, you choose to break up, because in the heat of anger you broke up. And after the breakup, the pain in your heart, the sadness, the emotion of not wanting to break up is extremely strong. Then the fact of your not breaking up is more certain than the fact of your breaking up -- in that probability space, the version of you two who did not break up are living together more happily, with greater certainty. Because when you feel very uncomfortable after the breakup, the opposite event actually happened more truly. Of course, it did not happen in this world of yours; it happened in another world.

All actions are initially generated by psychic acts.

This sentence is a key point. He says, this is the nature of reality -- the essence of the existence of our world. We often say belief creates reality, and many people use this as Seth's core idea, but actually this is only one of Seth's ideas. The world around us is projected outward by our beliefs, our thoughts, and our emotions, so psychic acts are the essence of things.

He says this cannot be overemphasized -- you must firmly remember: psychic acts are the essence of the existence of this world. The material things you see are only an illusion; their most essential nature is psychic.

Since all psychic acts have validity, they exist and cannot be denied, then by not accepting all these acts as concrete events, you cannot perceive their power and durability.

If you agree with this point, then you understand that the thoughts in your head -- the thought of not breaking up -- are equally real. Because psychic acts are the essence of the reality of this world, as long as you have thought this thought, it exists, and it exists in its own probability space. We feel it is only a thought, not a concrete event, so we cannot perceive its power and durability. Because we do not recognize it, do not acknowledge it, you cannot feel that the event truly happened; it just flashes by.

Your lack of perception cannot destroy their validity, however.

Your failure to perceive its existence cannot destroy or demolish the reality of their existence; you simply cannot perceive it.

Unused Talents and Parallel Universes

He began to give examples. He said, if you originally wanted to be a doctor -- when you were young you wanted to heal the wounded and rescue the dying, to be a doctor standing in the operating room -- this was a very strong wish and thought of yours, and now you are working in another field, for example you are now doing business, buying and selling, talking over business matters with others. Then:

In some other system of reality, you are a doctor.

Or to put it in terms we can understand, wouldn't it be better to explain it using parallel universes? Many people can accept the viewpoint of parallel universes. Then in this parallel universe, you are a doctor. In that space-time, you are a doctor. If you have talents that are not used here -- the talent of being a doctor -- then they will be used elsewhere.

Now, again, these concepts may seem too rich for your psychic blood.

These concepts may be too rich for our psyche, for our thoughts, for our modes of thinking to accept. We cannot accept that there is another me, living in another world. Why? Because this is due to our habitual mode of thinking in terms of continuity and our three-dimensional attitude. Because we are accustomed to time being single-threaded, the development of events being single-threaded, the progression of history being single-threaded; we have never considered the possibility of the existence of a parallel world. Moreover, our attitude toward the three-dimensional material world is that only what we can see, what we can touch, what is happening right now is truly real. All those thoughts, ideas, and notions -- these are all just thoughts existing in the mind, none of them are real, and as the thought passes, the matter is over. Because we have such a value system, such a worldview, such a cognitive framework, it is very difficult for us to understand and accept this system of probabilities he wants to describe.

Then Seth very humorously joked with her, saying you can have a three-dimensional rest.

The Validity of the Soul

He went on to say:

Now these facts do not deny the validity of the soul, but give it immeasurable reinforcement.

What does this mean? Many people say, if you put it that way, then every single thought of mine develops in other realities, and is a truly existing fact. What does my soul actually want, and does it still have its subjectivity? Today I chose to break up with him -- that was my soul's choice, that was my free will choice. You tell me that the matter of not breaking up also exists, also exists in another world -- is that me in that world also a branch of the soul? In other words, is it also a process of the soul going to experience and learn? Does this soul actually want to break up or not break up? You say the soul wants to experience its life, it wants to realize its blueprint, to sketch out a grand picture of the soul, and in this life it must complete its puzzle. Then what exactly does this puzzle want to do? If you put it that way, am I not confused? Then where is the soul's free will? In other words, where is your free will?

He hurried to emphasize this to you -- you must not misunderstand. Such a statement does not deny the validity of the soul; on the contrary, from another angle, it gives it immeasurable reinforcement.

This may indeed be somewhat difficult to understand -- mind-bending, very mind-bending. So in many spiritual studies, you will have a very big experience, which is often negation of negation of negation of negation, step by step like this. You just learned something, you just thought this thing is so good, it resolved years of confusion for me, this thing is wonderful, this is the truth I have been seeking all along, it made me understand a problem that had puzzled me for so many years; but just two days later you discover, how come what I understood is wrong again? How come there is a deviation in my understanding again? How come there is an even deeper meaning behind it? You become a bit confused -- which one is actually right? You often find yourself in a kind of paradox, as if constantly fighting yourself left hand against right hand, like Zhou Botong's left-right mutual combat.

Now, in Conversations with God¹ there is a sentence I think is very well said:

It says you must understand this sacred opposition or contradiction -- the original wording it uses is contradiction. This sacred contradiction is often where truth is hidden in the middle; truth is contained within this sacred contradiction.²

In other words, if you understand, if you grasp the existence of the paradox of this matter, then you know that the truth of this world is paradox. It is never a black-or-white, white-or-black thing; it is always a state where you are in me and I am in you, where right contains wrong and wrong contains right. If you have such a concept, then you can understand the true interpretation and true meaning of what he said earlier about not getting hung up on right and wrong, not getting hung up on good and evil, not getting hung up on good and bad. If you believe a certain principle is truly right, then it actually leads you to the other side, and you will never know what the wrong side looks like, and the world you know will always be only half.

So when you learn this knowledge and you find it conflicts with certain values you just learned or just understood, don't be afraid, and don't feel that your thinking cannot keep up, or that your imagination and reasoning cannot keep up; and don't feel that what exactly are they saying, why is there no consistent answer, one moment saying this is right, another moment saying that is right. You must deeply understand it; you must, within this contradiction, within this paradox, intuit it, comprehend it, rather than getting hung up on the contradictions and paradoxes on the surface of the words and the logic of the words. If you get hung up on the words, then you are missing the essence for the superficial. Because the words themselves are limited; what they express is wrong the moment it is spoken. Whether it is the Buddha or other teachers of the Dharma, they all tell you that this truth is broken the moment it is spoken. This matter cannot be spoken of; the moment it is spoken it is wrong; it is ineffable. Today, as long as we use our mouths to speak it, it is already wrong.

Then should we just not speak? If we don't speak, how will others know? So we still have to speak, knowing full well it is wrong, yet still speaking according to the wrong, hoping that within this wrong and the faintly visible right, you can intuit the true thing in the middle. I say this hoping you can understand -- absolutely do not get hung up on the words, the logic, the language. You must look inward, feel and intuit; through the two-sided matters he describes, within the tension between positive and negative, right and wrong, intuit the true thing within you, experience it. Don't just listen to what others tell you; when others say something, go feel it.

The Soul as a Multidimensional, Infinite Act

In this regard -- regarding whether the soul still has validity, whether the existence of these infinite probabilities has already destroyed, eliminated, or denied the validity of the soul or the validity of free will -- he says no, it only reinforces it immeasurably.

In this respect, the soul can be described as a multidimensional, infinite act.

From this angle, you can also describe the soul as an act that exists in multiple dimensions, with an infinite number of actions. This is the soul. If you don't understand the soul, you can understand it this way: the soul is the entity. You can think of the entity as an act that exists in multiple dimensions, existing in many dimensions, composed of countless possible actions combined together, and this act exists in worlds and space-times beyond your imagination -- the collection of these actions is the soul. This is a descriptive statement; it is meant to help you intuit and feel, so absolutely do not get hung up on the words. You say the soul is this -- no, it is a description of it.

Every most minute probability is brought into validity and existence somewhere.

A possibility so small it cannot be any smaller has actually happened in some reality, in some space.

An infinite creative act creates infinite dimensions for itself.

The soul is an infinite act -- an infinite number of acts existing in multiple dimensions. Then this infinite number of acts, if we regard each act as a creative act, creates infinite dimensions for itself. We say this soul is an infinite act existing in infinite space, then actually these infinite dimensions did not originally exist; they are the infinite dimensions brought about by this infinite number of acts.

In which a completion may be reached.

Within this infinite number of actions, within this infinite number of dimensions, a completion is reached -- an ineffable completion.

So, what I said in the previous two chapters -- you draw a puzzle of the soul, a complete puzzle, this small piece fits together, that small piece fits together -- I made a vivid analogy there to make it very easy for you to understand the content he wanted to convey in that chapter. But when you get here, you realize -- understood, it is not that simple. It is not a puzzle; it is a matrix. If you understand what a matrix is, you can probably understand; if you don't understand what a matrix is, it is very hard for me to describe what a matrix is. It is a multidimensional existence, a three-dimensional existence in multidimensional space, not just a flat picture.

The Existence of a Tapestry

He said:

You yourself appear to be a tapestry, an existence that the three-dimensional intellect can never see.

The "you" in this sentence refers to your essence. You yourself -- actually this entire you, your essence -- appears to be the existence of a tapestry. And this picture can never be seen by your three-dimensional intellect; the you in the material world cannot see this picture, yet you yourself are the existence of this picture.

Let me give an example. In that chapter, I said you are doing a puzzle, right? You piece together one small piece, and when each small piece is done, the whole picture is complete. You then have a concept: each reincarnation I piece together one small piece, each reincarnation completes one small piece, and when all these many reincarnations are complete, the picture is finished. Then many people left comments asking me, when will I know that this picture is complete? When will I know that I no longer need to reincarnate? When will this picture be finished? By asking such questions, aren't they still thinking in terms of the three-dimensional world?

I also often use the three-dimensional angle to tell them, when this picture is complete, you will know it yourself. Is it right for me to tell them this way? But there is no other way -- people can only think in terms of the three-dimensional world. But when you reach this level, you will understand: when is this picture complete? This picture is already complete; it is already in completion. It is not that there are still a few pieces unfinished. Because time is simultaneous -- if you can deeply understand this point -- all these probable versions of you exist simultaneously as a picture, then isn't this picture already complete in an instant? In other words, you are this picture.

From another angle, this reincarnation of yours is only experiencing that small part of the puzzle in the middle of this picture. You are experiencing it, you are also painting it, you are also enhancing it, you are also constructing the whole picture, and the whole picture itself also exists -- it is not waiting for you to complete it. Isn't this understanding a bit of a higher state? In other words, you are both creating this picture and completing this picture, and this picture is also existing at the same time; this picture already exists. In other words, you are this picture, yet you are completing a part of this picture. This in itself is a paradox; if you use the three-dimensional angle and logical mode of thinking, it is a paradox, but the fact is exactly like this.

So I hope you can follow my line of thinking here, so that you can roughly understand what he means. It far exceeds human thinking and the space of human imagination -- far exceeds it. This is also why many people don't want to continue reading Seth's books -- after reading for a while they just can't go on; they truly cannot go on.

Probable Selves

Let us continue.

These probable selves are nevertheless a portion of your identity, or soul.

Those reincarnated versions of you are also you. The you who chooses right now to go meet him or to sit at home reading a book, the you who chooses to break up with this boyfriend or not break up -- both versions of you are you. It is not that only the one happening right now is you, and the one that did not happen is not you. They are all you, just as the you who reincarnated as a beggar is also you, and the you who was a king is also you. Only in this way can you truly appreciate your own vastness, your own greatness, your own completeness, and where the value of your existence as a whole lies.

If you lose contact with them, it is only because you focus upon physical events and use them as the criterion for reality.

If you lose contact with those probable versions of you, those reincarnated versions of you -- what does "losing contact" mean? It means you do not consider them to be you; you only consider the present you to be you -- then that is only because you focus upon physical reality and use this physical reality as your criterion for judging the truth or falsity of this world. You think the material world you live in is real, and everything else is false, then you cannot connect with those versions of you. They don't exist, so how can you connect with them? You think in the vast universe, in the vast world, only this one person -- you -- exists, extremely lonely, extremely bored, then you cannot see the existence of the other versions of you.

From any point of your existence, however, you can glimpse other probable realities, and sense the reverberations of those probable actions beneath the actual decisions.

He says, at any point in your time, you can see these other probable realities -- glimpse, meaning not seeing them directly, just a glance -- and sense the reverberations of those thoughts you did not act upon, those probable actions you denied.

Probabilities in the Dream State

He goes on to explain what "glimpse" and "reverberations" mean.

Some people do this spontaneously, usually in the dream state. Here the rigid assumptions of normal waking consciousness, which are fixed and unchangeable, often fade.

In dreams, the rigidity of your waking consciousness -- the rigid thinking that believes this matter cannot happen in your reality, cannot be produced -- fades away.

And you find yourself in dreams performing actions you had previously ruled out.

You are performing those actions you did not choose, yet you never think that you are only dreaming. You think you are dreaming, but you do not realize that you have already glimpsed into one of your own probable existences; you have stepped into another space-time of yours and taken a look.

I think many people have had this experience. For example, many people in dreams -- a boyfriend she deeply loved, they may have already broken up in real life, but in her dream, she will be with that boyfriend as if the two of them had already married and lived together for a long time. She will return in her dream to a life scene where she is living together with her ex-boyfriend, and that feeling of reality is not a hazy one; the feeling is very real, as real as her daily life. After waking from the dream, she will feel a moment of daze and sigh -- ah, how could this be. I think everyone has experienced something similar. That state is the existence of that probability; you went and took a look. Why? Because in the dream, your waking consciousness does not have such strong rigidity, so it does not exclude that probability. When that probability is no longer suppressed by the waking consciousness, it becomes a probability, so in the dream you can see it.

Probable Earths

If there are individual "probable selves," then naturally there are "probable earths."

If probable versions of us exist, and every thought has probability, then do "probable earths" also exist? These earths all follow paths we did not take. At any node in the history of time, if we had chosen another path, would there be another earth's space-time existing?

In the waking state, beginning with an act of imagination, you can sometimes follow a short way down one of the "roads not taken."

What does this mean? We often do this -- if you study history, especially in Western countries, they often give you open-ended thought questions. For example, suppose the Normandy landing had failed, and after the Allied landing in Europe failed, how would the situation of World War II have developed, and what would the future of humanity be like?³ This is choosing another probability. In other words, if Nazi Germany had ruled the world in World War II, what would the consequences have been?⁴ Have you ever thought about this question? You might say you can only think about it for a little while, and then you can't continue. Yes, his meaning is exactly this -- you might think about it for a little while.

The Trance of a Space-Time Crack

He then gives an example. He says, let us return to the person who answered the phone earlier:

Let us suppose that he tells his friend he will not go, and at the same time he imagines himself agreeing to the appointment as the other alternative.

He has already decided not to go, and then he imagines: what would happen if he did go? He imagines it in his head.

Then he may experience sudden breaks, one after another.

This is what we call a space-time rupture -- often mentioned in novels and science fiction as a space-time rupture, where a crack in space-time appears, as if suddenly there is a gap or crack there, pulling him over, pulling him into the reality where he went to the appointment.

If his luck is good enough, if the conditions and luck are both good enough, and the circumstances at the time also happen to be just right, then he may suddenly feel the entire certainty of the invitation he received, just as strongly as if he had in fact accepted it.

In that instant, he seems to enter the space-time state of going to the appointment. He had actually clearly refused, but he is thinking about whether he should go, and he imagines what would happen if he did go. Once he thinks about it, after he finishes imagining, in that brief moment of dazed distraction, he discovers that he seems to have accepted it, to have agreed to go. What does he do then? He gets dressed, prepares his things, and is about to head out the door, about to go to the appointment. Sometimes he only remembers halfway there, sometimes only when he opens the door: I actually clearly refused him just now, I did not say I would go. But before that, you had a period of trance, during which you believed you had agreed to go, and you did not hesitate at all, you simply believed you had agreed to go, and you prepared according to going.

In such situations, that kind of saying one thing while meaning another often happens — the kind between lovers, or in some major decisions, in that kind of struggle between wanting to go and not wanting to go — when in your heart you want to go, but your mouth refuses him. Just like the example given earlier: your mouth refusing is a fact, in the three-dimensional world your mouth refused, but in your heart you desperately wanted to go. If the emotion of wanting to go is strong enough, and if the particular conditions, time, and space at that moment are all in place, then as if in a trance you believe you agreed to go, and that is a fact. There was no refusal at all.

For example, your ex, an old flame, or an old friend says let us meet tonight, and you actually feel you should not go, but in your heart you want to go. Suppose this situation occurs, and you especially want to go, and you imagine all the various scenes that would happen after meeting him, then you will suddenly have a feeling that you agreed to go, and then you start preparing — a woman starts putting on makeup, preparing clothes, fussing over herself and so on — and when she suddenly goes out and opens the door, she suddenly snaps awake: I think I just said I was not going. I think everyone sometimes encounters this kind of thing in life, but it does not happen every time.

This requires certain conditions. Did he not say, if his luck is good enough, and the various circumstances at the time also happen to be just right. If the conditions are not met, it cannot be done. That is, only after all the various conditions are met do you suddenly have a feeling of crossing through space and time, and you cross into the state where you agreed to go. Before he understands what has happened, he may really feel that he left home and engaged in that possible action — while in fact he chose the action of not going.

He talked about this matter, about how each of us may encounter this kind of experience once or twice in a lifetime. Through this matter he tells you: those things you thought about but did not do are actually really happening. Through this kind of crack in space and time, he reminds you, gives you evidence, and tells you that such things are real.

Not an Illusion

But in that instant, the entire experience would rush upon him. The imagination would open the door and give him the freedom to perceive, but there would be no illusion.

The entire experience of meeting that person rushes all at once into his experience, into his feelings. He says the imagination will open the door — that is, your imagination will open that tightly shut door, and you will go out to meet him — and then give him the freedom to perceive, letting him experience the feeling of going to the appointment. But there will be no illusion. He says that is not an illusion, that is real.

So there is an instant, a moment, right at the moment you decide you are going — although on the phone you said no, but you imagine that you are going — under the guidance of your imagination, that door of yours is opened by you, and you go out, and you go feel that thing, feel all of it. From the perspective of the three-dimensional world, it is an illusion, but in fact it is not an illusion.

You went out and had that date with that person, but do not forget that in the three-dimensional world, you refused to meet him, so he would not be there waiting for you, so how could you have the possibility of meeting? But in another reality system, in another space-time, you agreed to meet him, so that person would be waiting for you at that time and in that place, having dinner with you. So he tells you that is not an illusion, that is not something you imagined, that event also really happened, except that the you who refused to go did not experience it. But if your imagination is rich enough and the conditions are sufficiently in place, then you really open the door and go to the appointment.

But this kind of thing happens very rarely. Usually before you reach that stage, you suddenly wake up, and you do not go. It is very rare that you go out, have the evening appointment, come back, and only then discover that you actually did not go. In fact, at that point, you can no longer remember that you did not go. If you could remember that you did not go, would you not have returned to the original three-dimensional world? The state he is describing is one in which you simply cannot remember that you did not go, and you completely follow the version where you went. So in this life process, you experienced such a possibility, and did not experience the possibility where you refused. So he tells you that is not a fantasy, those feelings are all real.

A Simple Experiment

This is a simple experiment that can be done in any environment, yet a solitary setting is important.

This is an example he gives, and actually it is an experiment. You can do it in your life, at important or unimportant junctures, it does not matter. When you are alone — why alone? Because if others disturb you, they will pull you back into reality, pull you back into this possibility, so it is best to be alone. When you decide to do something but do not do it, at that time you can exercise your imagination, and imagine what it would be like if you did it, if you did that thing you refused. Just use your imagination to the fullest, the more real and detailed the better, completely bring yourself into it. Imagine putting on makeup and going out, grabbing your bag and taking a taxi downstairs or driving, arriving somewhere to meet him, what you say and talk about after meeting him, and then what happens afterward. Just imagine. After imagining for a while, he says that feeling will come over you completely, as if you had experienced it exactly the same way. Then for an instant you are in a daze, and you do not know whether you really went to meet this person.

He says this is an experiment, and you can try it if you are interested.

Such an experiment will not, however, take you very far. The probable self who chose the action you denied is quite different from the self you know in certain important ways.

You can think about this matter, but you cannot think very far, you can only go a short stretch. Why can you not go very far? Because the you in that possibility who made the decision not to go, and the you who made the decision to go, are different, and you are different in many important ways. So this difference will cause you to be unable to continue imagining at many points. Maybe just after meeting and exchanging a few pleasantries, you may not be able to imagine how it develops further. The you who did not want to go certainly had many reasons for not wanting to go, for example you felt meeting him would be awkward, you felt there would be nothing to say to him, and at that point you also cannot imagine what you would have to say to him. But the you in that possibility who wanted to go is certainly another version of you, and he has a different way of thinking. So you cannot imagine how that you develops later on, you can only imagine a short stretch.

Thoughts Open Worlds

Every mental act opens up a new dimension of actuality.

Every thought, every idea, opens up a new dimension. How amazing, is it not? Do you see how amazing we humans are? You can split heaven and earth, create a new world, from nothing to something. Every thought and every idea of yours is opening a new dimension, a new plane.

In a manner of speaking, your slightest thought gives birth to new worlds.

A new world is born under that thought of yours. So in the earlier chapters he said, you must never ignore your arising thoughts, never ignore every single thought of yours. Do you remember that passage? At that time I had you underline the key point. What he said was: every most insignificant, most tiny emotion, thought, or feeling of yours will, in another reality — or in a reality you do not know — produce a reverberation far greater than your brain can imagine. That was his original wording.

He did not expand on it there. What does it mean here? Any thought of yours, any idea of yours, opens up, creates, a brand-new world.

This is not a dry metaphysical statement. It should evoke within you the strongest feelings of creativity and speculation.

It is not a metaphysical discussion. What should it be? It should call forth your strongest creativity. Since you have such great ability, should it not bring your creativity to its fullest, expand your imaginative space to infinity? All the things you have not experienced in reality, you can imagine them, realize them. And the feeling of speculative thought, you can chase after your own thinking. This is an ability to train, and later chapters will mention it — that is, you train yourself to follow your thoughts as they run. This is a very, very powerful training, very useful, but we will not expand on it here.

No being or existence can be sterile and unable to grow of itself.

The scope he refers to is very broad — all things, all things in the world, and existence itself, cannot be sterile and unable to grow of themselves. Living beings cannot be sterile, existence cannot fail to grow of itself. Any state of existence is in development, not a static state. Just as living things must have reproduction, existence itself is certainly growing of itself, certainly in development, rather than stopping there.

No thought can die, and no ability can be wasted.

No thought simply ceases to be, dies, no. No thought will disappear. Once a thought arises, it will never disappear. You can understand this. He did not expand on it, and we will not expand on it here either.

The Openness of Reality Systems

Every probable system of reality naturally creates other such systems.

This sentence is very philosophical, underline it as a key point. In this real world of ours, a thought in your mind, a possibility, will create a new reality system, a new world, a new space-time, a new dimension. Then can that probable system of yours also create new probable systems? And can your probable system create still more probable systems? That is what he means: one probable system creates another probability, forever onward.

Behind any known act of reality, there are an infinite number of "unrealized" acts.

Any action we have already realized implies many other actions you did not choose. Those other actions you thought you did not choose, those infinite possibilities, also exist.

And these unrealized acts will all eventually be realized.

Those actions you did not choose will eventually all be realized.

All systems of reality are open.

All spaces, all dimensions are open. They are not isolated or cut off from one another; they are connected.

The boundaries between them are arbitrary decisions made for convenience.

Saying that this reality space and that reality space are separate and unconnected is only an arbitrary division made for the convenience of description. Internally they are connected.

All realities exist simultaneously, each supporting and reinforcing the other.

All space-times, all worlds exist simultaneously, each supporting and reinforcing the other. How do you understand this? You can understand it very well now. Because in this reality, for example, you chose one thing, and the other things you did not choose are realized in other realities. Is that not a kind of reinforcement and support for those other realities? It is because of the things you did not choose in this reality that some new realities came into being. You are a kind of reinforcement, a kind of supplement, a kind of support for those realities. Without you, they would not exist.

Conversely, the things that the probable you in those realities did not choose, are they not all chosen here by you? The thing you choose to realize today, in this present moment, might in another reality be exactly the action that the probable you did not choose, and you realized it here. All of this is reasonable. So these reality systems mutually support and reinforce one another; they are not completely separate.

Therefore, your actions are also reflected in the experience of your own probable selves.

The things you do now are also reflected in the things those probable yous did not do. And vice versa: the things you are doing now, the things you have actualized, manifested, and practiced in this reality of yours, may all be things that the you in another space did not do. Conversely, the things they did not do may all be things you did, the choices they did not make may all be ones you made, and the choices you did not make may all be ones they made — not "may be," they all did make them.

Benefiting from Probable Selves

According to your degree of openness and acceptance, you can gain great benefit from the experiences of your "probable selves," and you can also benefit from the knowledge and abilities they possess.

According to the openness and acceptance of your consciousness or thinking, if you do not believe, do not accept, and have no openness, if you are rigidly and stubbornly convinced that all this is nonsense, then there is no way for you. If you have a certain degree of openness and acceptance, you can gain benefit from the experiences of your other probable yous, and you can also benefit from the knowledge and abilities possessed by your probable selves. That is to say, you can gain experience and benefit from other lives in parallel universes, or from those things you did not choose.

You often do this quite spontaneously in the dream state.

We often dream of other lives, other experiences, and we can learn things from them. So many people's inspirations come from dreams, and they really do come from dreams, this is not an exaggeration. We often talk about Tesla, this person who existed like a god⁵, and he often said that many of his inspirations were known to him in dreams. Because in that era, in the era Tesla lived in, his inventions and creations, his scientific advances, far exceeded anything humans at that time could imagine. I will not give examples. If you are interested, you can search on YouTube for "Tesla, the man who existed like a god," and you can find many, many introductions about him, and you will be greatly astonished⁶.

And what seems to you like an inspiration is often a thought that another self has entertained but not actualized.

The experiences, the knowledge, the information transmitted to you by those probable yous in other space-times, to you it is like an inspiration. This inspiration is often a thought that another you in another space-time thought about but did not realize. He thought about it, but it was something he did not realize, and in you it may become your inspiration.

You tune in to it and actualize it.

That inspiration is actually an idea of another you, a probable idea of another you in another space-time, one he did not realize. What then? You realize it. Is this not exactly the reverse of what I just said — you have an idea in your mind, you want to do it but you do not do it, and is it not possible that another you in another space-time also received that inspiration of wanting to do it but not doing it, and perhaps in his reality he realized it?

Concepts that you have entertained but not used may be picked up in the same way by other probable selves.

A casual thought is just a thought, but if you have made a very thorough consideration of something, carefully thought through some things, those may be picked up in the same way by other probable yous.

Every Probable Self

Every probable self considers itself the real self.

Just like the you in this present moment considers this to be the real you, and all those other probable yous in developments you did not choose are not the real you, just a thought of yours. So every probable you considers the space-time he is in to be real, and the self in that space-time to be the real self.

And to any of them, you are the probable self.

To that probable you in another space-time, the you of now is the probable self. Each is the probable self of the other.

And through the inner senses, you all perceive that you are part of this entire gestalt.

Through the inner senses — these are things beyond consciousness, within consciousness, or beneath the subconscious — you can perceive it. In your conscious mind, you cannot perceive it.

The Soul Is a Process of Becoming

He goes on to explain:

The soul is not a finished work. In fact, it cannot be called a work at all, but a process of becoming.

The soul is not something already completed, an already finished product, but a process of becoming.

Speaking of "All That Is," it is also not a completed or unfinished product; it is likewise a process of becoming.

It is not something already completed, or not yet completed, waiting for us to complete it.

In the same way, just as there are probable men, there are probable gods.

What he means is that the existence of probable versions of us implies the existence of probable versions of "All That Is." Does "All That Is" also have many probable existences? Does it get a little dizzying here? Actually, if you can understand it, it follows the same pattern all the way down.

But these probable gods are all what you would call part of the soul or entity of "All That Is."

That is, if there are probable men, there are probable gods, and this is the same principle. Since there are probable existences of us, then there are probable existences of gods, which means probable existences of souls, probable existences of "All That Is." If you consider the matter this way, you will enter a higher level. He moves a bit fast here, but in order to explain this principle, he pulls you up to a higher level all at once.

Just as your probable selves are all part of your soul and entity, those probable gods are also part of "All That Is" or the soul's entity. Just as you yourself are also part of your own soul and entity, the two are the same. That is, this oneness and this apparent duality are unified together; they do not conflict or contradict. This point cannot be argued or proven using words and three-dimensional logic. If you consider it from that angle, you will always be wrong, and you will never arrive at a correct result.

The dimensions in which "All That Is" can actualize itself are, of course, far beyond those available to you.

The dimensions it obtains within its possibilities, that is, its dimensions, far exceed what you can now imagine, that is for certain. "All That Is" produced countless souls, and under countless souls there are countless reincarnated us. We now know that there are also countless probable versions of us. Setting aside those countless reincarnations for the moment, just in this one life of ours, are there not also countless probable realities, countless parallel universes and parallel worlds? If we have so many endless probable existences, then the dimensions and spaces that "All That Is" experiences, creates, and perceives, are they not far, far more than what we, as fragment personalities at our level, can experience? That is what he wants to say here.

Probable Gods

In one way, you have through your thoughts and desires created many probable gods, who became quite independent psychic entities.

From a certain direction, through your ideas, your thoughts and desires, you have created many probable gods. They become quite independent psychic entities. Once you create them, they become independent, no longer under your control, realizing themselves in other reality dimensions.

The one "All That Is" perceives not only its own identity and the nature of conscious being and all consciousness, but it also perceives its infinite probable selves.

"All That Is," from a certain angle, is the only one. What it perceives is not only its own identity and the nature of all consciousness, not only this one timeline, but it also perceives all its infinite probable selves. Just as in the future you will also be able to experience infinitely many probable yous, the same principle applies.

So there will be infinitely many "All That Is," within which there are infinitely many souls, and within each soul there are infinitely many probable personality reincarnational fragments, and within each personality reincarnational fragment there are infinitely many probable space-times and worlds, within which there are infinitely many probable yous. This kind of infinity multiplied by infinity multiplied by infinity — you can imagine how vast this world is.

A Buddhist Analogy

So this is what Buddhism often says. Buddhism calls the universe we live in — all the material universe we can now see — a small world. Buddhism holds that three thousand such small worlds make up our universe, becoming a middle world; then three thousand such middle worlds make up a great world. And how many are there in the entire universe? There are three thousand great thousand-worlds. So this is where the "three thousand great thousand-worlds" comes from.⁷

So you can probably understand that what they are saying here has a similar meaning. The vastness of the universe, its inconceivability, exceeds your normal logic and thinking ability. The material universe we can now see, you now know it is only a very, very small part. So when people study the universe and say how big it is, saying the universe is now 93 billion light-years across and so on, that this is the limit of what humans can detect⁸ — you can now understand what a tiny, laughable matter that is. The entire world and universe is larger than that by an incalculable, immeasurable multiple.

Beyond Description in Words

From this aspect, from this level, if we continue the discussion:

The subject matter can no longer be described in words, and all words become meaningless.

If we talk to this level, there is no need to continue, because further discussion has no meaning. Facing such a world of infinity multiplied by infinity multiplied by infinity multiplied by infinity, any language of ours is pale, and your imagination also becomes pale.

The nature of "All That Is" can only be directly felt through the inner senses.

Although we are in the three-dimensional world, using our three-dimensional brains — our three-dimensional brains and human language — we cannot perceive or describe it, but its essence can only be directly felt through the inner senses. Every one of us has inner senses; it is only a matter of whether you use them or can open them.

So the real things in this world cannot be depicted through language or other means. You say that today's scientists want to study the origin and essence of the world through scientific methods, scientific means, and rational approaches. You now understand that they are actually walking in a completely wrong direction. Using that direction and that method, they will never know what the essence of the world is. At most, they can only study one of an infinite number of probable worlds — and they cannot even study that one clearly, because our present world is also influenced by the possibilities of other worlds, so they will get everything mixed together and simply cannot understand why things are the way they are. Only through the inner senses can you perceive it.

So whether in Buddhism, in Taoism, in other religious groups, or in other spiritual practice organizations, they actually tell you to go realize the Way yourself, to perceive it yourself, because they cannot tell you in words.

But in a weaker communication, you can perceive a part of its intuitive inspiration, or a sense of conviction, through your subconscious, or through your inner perception.

What is a weaker communication? It is when you can, through inspiration—this is weaker perception or intuition—through your subconscious, or through your inner perception, perceive a part of the intuitive inspiration, or a sense of conviction, and so on. In this kind of communication, you are able to perceive it.

The inconceivable complexity of this kind of reality cannot be interpreted through language.

He still wants to interpret it through language, doesn't he? Isn't he still using language to interpret it? So although it cannot be spoken, Seth is also trying his utmost. This book is still okay; later on, when you get to The "Unknown" Reality and Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, you will find that when he was transmitting to Jane, his pauses lasted longer than his speaking. He paused a great deal, and in one evening he could not transmit much content. When you read those books, just as the records in those books show, you will remember pauses, long pauses, and then pauses, long pauses; often the books are full of this. Because at that level, Seth also did not know how to describe it in language; he was racking his brains trying to figure out how to use language to describe this thing.

So what I admire is that he clearly knew this thing cannot be described in language, yet he still insisted on finding every possible way to describe it in language. He continues to talk about it later; there are still two more sessions ahead, still discussing this matter of probabilities.

The Metaphor of the Dewdrop

Now regarding this, Buddhism actually has some of its own viewpoints and discussions, which are also very vivid. Buddhism's description of this world is very vivid. Let me describe it for everyone; you can imagine it. But right now I am only giving a vivid description.

In Buddhism, it is held that this world, the universe we live in—the universe you live in, because each person has their own universe in their mind—well, this universe of ours, is just a dewdrop. Suppose we imagine that in a space, within the space of our three-dimensional world, there is a densely woven net made of silk threads, a net woven from extremely fine silk. On this net there are countless dewdrops; in the morning when the weather is cool, this net gathers many dewdrops, and every dewdrop is crystal clear. Every world is a dewdrop. In this world there is an especially enormous net, and this net is not flat but three-dimensional, a dense three-dimensional net crisscrossing vertically and horizontally, interwoven above and below. On this net there are countless dewdrops, and every dewdrop is a universe.⁹

These dewdrops also reflect one another. If you look at any single dewdrop, in theory can you see all the dewdrops? In theory can you see all possible dewdrops? In this one space, are not the images of all the dewdrops reflected on the surface of this dewdrop? And do not the other dewdrops also reflect this dewdrop? Between them there is a relationship of mutual reflection. Therefore, when you look at each dewdrop you can see the existence of the other dewdrops, and the other dewdrops, though they seem to have no connection with it, are in fact inwardly connected through this relationship of mutual shadows.

This is a vivid metaphor that Buddhism once gave concerning the universe and the world. Through this metaphor, you can probably imagine something of the complexity involved. In other words, any change in any universe, or any change in any probability, will affect the changes in the other dewdrops. To what degree does that influence reach? It will produce an effect on its outer appearance. Can it affect the inside? Of course it can affect the inside; the dewdrop is transparent, and when the outer appearance changes, does the inside not also change along with it? The outer appearance will penetrate into the inside. Only the Buddha could have conceived of such an image; if you savor carefully, the relationships within it are extremely subtle.

Fortunately, there is still a great deal of content later on, still introducing the existence of probabilities—what the probable you and probable worlds are actually like. We will slowly share and experience this with everyone in the content that follows.

As for this probable world and the probable self, they are equally real in their existence. This is truly very hard to put into words; even Seth cannot express it, even the Buddha cannot express it, even Laozi cannot express it, and as for me—what virtue or ability do I have to express it? I cannot express it either. What remains is to bring into play your own space of imagination and understanding to know it.

The Reality System of Probabilities

Probabilities are an ever-present part of the psychological environment that you cannot see. We cannot see it, but it has always existed. You live within the reality system of probabilities; it exists all around us. It is not something separate from you—it has always existed with us.

To some degree, it is like an ocean you are currently living in—you are in it, and it is in you. This is somewhat like what I explained to everyone in that video about four-dimensional space: what four-dimensional space is—it is both inside three-dimensional space and outside three-dimensional space. The reality system of probabilities is a multidimensional reality system; it is both inside our three-dimensional world and outside our three-dimensional world. Is this in itself a paradox? It is a paradox, but that is actually how it is.

Occasionally—and this certainly does not happen often—you will speculate on the surface level of consciousness: if you had made a different decision instead of the one you originally made, how would things have unfolded? We often engage in this kind of thinking. For example, you might imagine choosing a different spouse, or settling down in another place; you might also wonder, if you had mailed that important letter you decided not to send, what would have come of it? And only when you engage in such small speculations have you ever questioned the nature of probabilities.

Telepathic Connections

But between you and all the people related to you, as well as those involved in major decisions, there are very deep connections. These connections are not vague and indistinct like clouds and mist; they are extremely profound psychological interconnections that bind you one by one, especially existing within a telepathic framework, although this may be beneath normal consciousness.

Let me first explain the passage above. When you make any decision, between you and anyone who has any intersection with you, or anyone you have to take into account when making the decision, there is a certain connection between you, and it is a very deep connection. He says these connections are not as vague and indistinct as clouds and mist as you might think -- because the relationships involved here are too complex. Is it like what you imagine, that if all possibilities were operating at the same time, the relationships would be so complicated they would be like a hopelessly tangled ball of thread that you could not sort out at all? He says no. They bind you -- who? You and the people involved in the event -- they bind you one by one in an extremely profound psychological interconnection.

This is very hard to understand. Between you and the people who have intersections with you, if you make this choice and not that one, what kind of influence will it have on them? If they make a certain decision, what kind of influence will it have on you? This kind of connection exists within a telepathic framework, and this framework is not even perceived by your consciousness.

What he says here really does go somewhat beyond the scope of what we can understand. You and the people around you seem to have no relationship on the surface, but in fact there is a very deep telepathic framework of connection between you. Within that framework of connection, your deep inner connections bind you into these events, and that telepathic connection is beyond the scope of your conscious understanding, beneath normal consciousness, something you cannot understand. The substantial connections that could have occurred but were not realized have happened and been completed on other levels of reality.

The connection between you is far more complex and far more intimate than you think. For example, you broke up with your former boyfriend or girlfriend, and the two of you think you were just passersby in each other's lives, that the matter is over, that the connection has ended. He says in fact the connection is much deeper than that -- on another level, perhaps the two of you lived happily together for a lifetime like a prince and princess. Behind this is an extremely profound psychological interconnection, beneath the level of consciousness, something you do not know.

The invisible environment in your mind, our inner world, is not as lonely as you think. When you are truly alone, stripped of all the external world, our inner being is very lonely. He says it is not that lonely. Why? Think about how many things are happening -- how could you be lonely? Your inner being has so many dramas playing out every day, and all possibilities are happening.

Then why do you feel lonely, as if there is an inner sense of isolation? That arises from the ego's stubborn defensiveness. Why? Because it sees no reason to let you know information that it considers unrelated to day-to-day daily life. Your ego sees no reason to let you know about those possible events that are unrelated to your daily life, so it blocks them out, and you cannot feel them at all.

The Probable Self and the Entity

I don't like the phrase "seeking progress." He doesn't like our human phrase "seeking progress," because everything happens simultaneously, everything is generated simultaneously, everything is a gestalt, and is in the process of being a gestalt, so there is no such thing as "progress." However, in your terms, as a consciousness, "seeking progress" means becoming more and more aware of the other concretizations of your own entity. What does "progress" mean for our consciousness? It means you can become more and more aware of the other concretized possibilities beyond your entity, that is, to come to know the other probable selves.

And to realize that all of these are different manifestations of the "true entity." He has already said here that the probable self "must" — he used "must," meaning it has this need — know the other probable selves, and then, by knowing that all of these probable selves exist simultaneously, realize that all of these are different manifestations of this true self. Each probable self is only one manifestation, and it is these manifestations that constitute his true entity.

And these "probable selves" are not "lost," buried, or negated in some oversoul, without free will, autonomy, or individuality. What he wants to say is that each probable self is not lost, buried, or negated within some higher entity or higher self. Does that mean it has no autonomy, no individuality of its own? No. Today you have come to know that probable versions of you exist, and you have also come to know about these parallel universes — so does that mean you no longer have autonomy? You no longer have spontaneity, you no longer have your own personality? Do you stop making any decisions every day? You feel that every decision has many possibilities happening simultaneously, so you might as well not choose — would you do that? You would not.

So each probable self will not be lost; each one develops completely according to its own free will. And the process of all these possibilities developing is what forms your true entity. Conversely, why will they not be lost? Because the entity is them; from another angle, they are the entity, and the entity is them. How could they lack autonomy? They have complete freedom to express all possible actions and developments, not only in this reality, but in other unknown realities as well.

In other words, you think of the probable you — you consider the problem in terms of dualistic opposition, using the ordinary three-dimensional world's way of thinking of either/or. The probable self and the entity self must be two different things, must be in an oppositional relationship: there is a probable self, and then there is an entity, and the entity is composed of countless probable selves. You definitely think about this problem in that way. But you can never understand that this probable you, this present you, is this entity — this is a threshold of thought that you must cross.

You are not a marionette manipulated by someone else, nor are you some branch of someone's consciousness, a branch of an unrealized idea. None of that. You are this entity, and this entity is you. You are also those probable selves, and those probable selves are also you. This understanding must be approached with an understanding that transcends the three-dimensional.

Never, once you understand something, set that thing in opposition to yourself. Many people in spiritual practice make the same mistake: once they understand something like the inner self, the fundamental self, the entity, the soul, the fragment personality — once this concept is given to them, they immediately set themselves in opposition to themselves, immediately differentiate it. This is human instinct — once a person has a concept, the instinctive response is to differentiate it, to make it distinctly clear: one is one, two is two, cabbage is cabbage, tofu is tofu, scallion is scallion — you must separate them.

You must return to a state in which you can see things that are clearly separate as one. You must have this level of thought and realization in order to have a higher understanding. Never use traditional thinking where something is just what it is, constantly arguing until you are red in the face saying, "This is clearly this, and that is clearly that — how could the two be one?" If you think about problems in that way, then you still cannot quite understand.

The Center of the Cosmic Web

As you read this book in your present moment, you are at the center of a cosmic web of "probabilities." As I said in the last session, you are like one of the dewdrops in it, you are the center, and your most subtle mental and emotional actions affect it—affect whom? Affect this web.

Therefore, your thoughts and emotions are sent out from you in all directions—not only toward the physical world, but also toward the invisible, nonphysical world—and appear in dimensions you do not yet understand. Within your own universe, you are the center of that universe. All your thoughts and emotions radiate outward in every direction, in all 360 degrees without any blind spot. Your emotions and your thoughts not only affect your physical world, they even create your physical world and form your environment; they also have an impact in dimensions and timespaces you cannot see. They affect your entire web—doesn't this feel a bit like the world full of dewdrops I described in the last session?

Now, at the same time you receive signals sent out from other systems of probabilities connected to you. What kind of signals? They are also a kind of emotion, a kind of thought, and they are also sent out to you from other probabilities. But it is up to you to choose which of those possible actions you will make real, or make manifest within your system—just as other people also have freedom of choice within their own systems.

In this cosmic web you sit at the center, and as you radiate your emotions outward in all directions, other people in their own reality spaces are also radiating their emotions and thoughts toward you. What is meant by the radiation of thought is precisely this kind of probability. In this present moment, suppose you are walking down the street, and in your mind there may be ten possible thoughts: you could go home, you could go to an internet cafe, you could go meet friends, you could go have a drink, or you could go to a store and buy something. You walk down the street carrying these ten possibilities, and these ten possibilities are simultaneously radiating outward, generating ten worlds, ten timespaces.

And the state of you walking down the street right now may also be the realization in your world of a probability from another timespace. In that other one, he did not have the thought of walking down the street—in his world, he may still be sitting in the office, not off work at all, not heading back, still working overtime. So the mutual influence among these is extremely rich and complex.

And no matter which timespace—whether it is the you sitting in the office working overtime, or the you who has decided to get off work and is walking down the street while also carrying ten alternatives, or those yous in other timespaces who have already realized the possibilities you did not choose—no matter which you, each has its own freedom of decision. You choose which one to actualize in your present reality, and that is entirely your own autonomous right of decision. All of what I just said is meant to tell you that you will not get lost among countless probabilities, or lose yourself within a single self-identity, thinking you have no choice.

You send out concepts, and you also receive concepts; you radiate and you also receive. You are not forced to actualize the unactualized possible actions that come from other probable selves. This sentence is like a tongue twister. What it means is: you are not forced to actualize the ideas that others did not actualize—the ideas that the you in other probabilities did not actualize being dumped on you, so that you must actualize them here—there is no such phenomenon, and you do not need it.

Psychic Connections and Leakage

Between you and your other probable selves, there is a kind of natural attraction, an electromagnetic correlation connected with the simultaneous propulsion of energy. This part is not easy to understand. What it means is that between you and the probable yous, there is an inner connection, and this inner connection is a natural attraction. Seth says it is related to the electromagnetic correlation of the simultaneous propulsion of energy.

What I mean is this: the energy that appears simultaneously for you and for the probable yous in other realities. Among all the "yous," there is a psychic relationship, a unified, sympathetic, emotional response to one another, and this connection is very evident in the dream state.

In other words, among these probable yous there is this kind of emotional and psychological connection, or one might say an emotional bond, something sympathetic. The thoughts and emotions of a probable you in another probable time and space will only affect that probable you in that other probable world; they will not affect other people. I do not mean that his actions do not affect him; what I mean is that his thoughts, emotions, and inner perceptions do not affect other people. All of you people are on a spectrum of telepathy.

All of these probable yous are driven by the same larger energy -- we can only understand it this way. In other words, although all of these yous exist in different times and spaces, doing different things according to their own decisions, all of these yous existing in these different times and spaces share something in common. If we say they are composed of a common energy mass, then the energy masses of these yous in different times and spaces have a certain inner connection among them. This thing is very hard to put into words, and I cannot explain it very clearly either, so just feel it this way. Seth did not expand on it either, so I can only tell you according to my own understanding that this is the kind of relationship involved.

Under what circumstances can this connection be discovered? In dreams. In dreams, the functions of the ego are relatively still, and there is a considerable amount of communication among the various probable yous. In dreams, you will catch a glimpse of the probable paths you might have chosen. Perhaps you think these are only fantasies -- for example, you see yourself living with your ex-boyfriend, you take a glance, and you think it is just a fantasy. Actually, perhaps you are genuinely seeing a legitimate picture of events taking place in another probable system.

However, one event can be actualized by more than one probable self. Here he emphasizes this point: it is not that once you choose this event, then this probable you actualizes it and the other probable yous do not do it -- no, it may be actualized by multiple probable yous.

And you resemble some probable selves more than others. Why? Because the two of you did the same thing -- if the things you do that are the same are numerous enough, you will feel that the two of you are more and more alike. Because you yourself are situated within such a very complex, multidimensional reality system of probable selves, and because, as mentioned earlier, this psychic connection does indeed exist, you can borrow some of the partial talents and knowledge of other probable selves -- partial, not all of it.

This connection causes a constant "leakage." However, once you become aware of probable systems, you also learn to be alert to what I earlier called "benign intrusive impulses." That is, sometimes you have an impulse to do something -- he calls it a "benign intrusion," not a malicious one -- and you become alert to it. Why are they called intrusive? Because they enter your consciousness very quickly, you perceive them immediately, and they bring with them a sense of unfamiliarity, as though these inspirations and ideas were not your own. These things often give us all kinds of clues.

For example, you may know nothing at all about music, yet on some afternoon while you are dealing with trivial mundane affairs, you suddenly feel an impulse to go buy a violin. I do not know whether any of you have had this feeling. When I was very young -- probably in my first year of junior high -- for a period of time I suddenly wanted a guitar very much. At that time it was still the kind called Hongmian guitar, and Hongmian guitars were a very good kind of classical guitar at the time¹⁰. I was originally someone who knew nothing about music, was completely tone-deaf, and could not sing either, yet I suddenly wanted to go buy a guitar. This kind of impulse is often a benign hint given to you by that you in another probable reality.

Such an impulse may indicate that another probable portion of your entity has a talent for that instrument. I am not telling you to run out right now and buy a violin, but in any case you can, within reasonable limits, put this impulse into action -- for example, rent a violin, or familiarize yourself a bit more with violin concertos. What he means is that you must respond to these impulses and inspirations within you, for they often carry deeper meaning. When you do not understand them and they seem out of place in your life, you should respond to them. Know that if this impulse comes from a probable self, you will learn that instrument very quickly.

Needless to say, probable selves also exist in your "future," just as they exist in your past. Do not think that probable yous exist only in the past -- that he learned the violin and then came to hint that you should learn it; he exists in your future just the same.

The Possibility of Changing the Past

The passage that follows is very important. It is very unwise to dwell on the unpleasant things in your past. Why is it very unwise? Because some part of a probable self may still be caught up in that past. Since you know that probable versions of you exist everywhere -- as soon as a thought arises, it exists; the moment you have an idea, a new space-time opens up, and the you who holds that idea goes and lives inside it -- this kind of leakage happens often, and it happens continuously, and it also happens in dreams.

So if something very unpleasant happened in the past, and you are still entangled in that matter, wouldn't that project you into that probable reality? When that event happened, you may already have been drawn into it -- not the you in the present, but the you in that probable reality. And if you keep brooding over it, if you cannot let it go, your emotions will affect that you in the probable reality, and then in turn he will also affect you.

Concentrating on the past may bring about more leakage and unfavorable identification. When you pay too much attention to a bad past, you bring more leakage to that probable you, and this identification with the bad past event is also carried over. Because that "past" is a "common background" shared by you and any probable selves that sprang from that particular source.

Let me give an example. Suppose you had a big argument with your boss, and it was a very bad thing -- you lost your job on the spot and were fired. But after that event happened, didn't you go look for another job, didn't you go do other things, and didn't a whole series of events unfold? From your perspective, only one path of development exists, but didn't many other probabilities also happen at the same time? All these probabilities that came into being -- don't they share a common background, namely the event of your arguing with your boss and getting fired? We won't consider what came before that; after that point, it is a common background. But within this common background, if you do not accept it, or if you regard it as a very bad, very negative thing, this common perception and belief will affect the thinking of all the probable yous that came after that event.

It is also unwise to dwell on thoughts of possible illness or disaster. Because your negative expectations and predictions about the future will cast a net of negative probabilities. What does this mean? Didn't he say earlier? All your ideas and thoughts project a probable existence. So when a negative thought arises -- you say, will I get sick from this? Will working overtime like this for so long give me heart disease, or a cerebral hemorrhage? -- that thought produces a version of you who has already had a cerebral hemorrhage, or heart disease, or a stroke, an existence that already exists in another reality. Those things did not need to happen -- theoretically, if you did not have that thought, they would not happen. But once you have that thought, they do happen; they happen in that reality.

Theoretically, you can change "your own past" as you know it. Many people say, "Changing my future -- that I can understand. But you say I can also change my past? What does that mean?" How do you change the past? Because probability works the same way, and time is not something separate from you either -- time is not something that exists apart from us, independent of us; it is within you, time is within your beliefs. We will not expand on this today.

The past exists in many ways, and you have only experienced one probable past. What we call the past is just one of thousands upon thousands of probabilities. He says, by changing that past in your mind "in the present," you can not only change its nature and its effect on you, you can also change its effect on others. This is really remarkable.

How do you change it? Suppose a certain specific event happened that troubled you greatly. For example, you divorced your husband, and he abandoned you. In your mind this is a very disturbing, very painful event, and your life afterward has been greatly affected by it. What should you do in this case? You must imagine, in your mind, not only erasing that event, but replacing it with an event that is essentially more beneficial. You can imagine that you did not divorce, or imagine that you divorced but in the way you would have wanted, in a way that was very favorable to you -- imagine a better outcome for yourself.

This imagining must be very vivid, with genuine emotional feeling, and it must be visualized repeatedly. It is not enough to just think about it casually with your lips -- that is useless. You must bring emotion into it, and you must bring in the details of the life scenes. You must remember the word "vivid," and you must visualize repeatedly -- once is not enough; you must visualize repeatedly. Remember the word "repeatedly."

This is not self-deception. You say, "Isn't this just fooling myself? Isn't this lying to myself? Self-deception!" He says, the event you choose to imagine will automatically be a probable event, and it does indeed happen. He said earlier that the moment a thought arises in your mind, that thing has already happened in another space-time. If you imagine something so vividly, hasn't that thing also happened in some space-time? Although it did not happen in the event you perceived in your "probable past," in some space-time, because of your vivid imagining, the good thing also happened.

If this process is done correctly, your thoughts will also telepathically affect anyone connected with the original event -- although they can choose to reject or accept this new version of yours. But the person involved has his own autonomy; he can accept it or refuse it.

This is not a book about techniques. This book is an outline, a general overview. In The Nature of Personal Reality, he will introduce some specific methods and means; in this book he will not go into those details. I know that people who read this far, or hear this far, are actually more interested in these methods, but don't be impatient -- let us first gain a complete understanding of the whole system, and then understand how the methods work; that will be more valuable.

But you must remember, in the most practical terms, that many events which are not perceived or experienced on the physical level are just as valid and just as meaningful as those that are actually perceived and experienced -- in your own invisible psychological environment, they are equally real. That passage summarizes what came before. The events you did not choose, the things you imagined, are just as valid and just as meaningful as the things you actualized in the three-dimensional world. Do not think that imagining good things has no real significance -- it is just as meaningful as the influence those bad things you experienced in the past have had on you.

Thought Patterns Determine Future Choices

So then, in your terms, you are right now laying the groundwork for an infinite number of future probable events. The nature of our present thoughts and feelings determines our future -- isn't that what this translates to? So we need to constantly pay attention to the nature of our present thoughts and feelings. The nature of the thoughts and feelings you receive according to your habits or characteristics will establish a pattern.

In other words, the pattern of how you think about problems, or your values and worldview, acts like a filter, a sieve, only receiving the things you are interested in, and then it establishes a pattern, thereby reinforcing certain beliefs and viewpoints of yours, and thus you will select certain events from among those possible futures. The future for you is infinite possibilities, but because of this pattern of your thoughts and feelings, you will only select certain things from the future -- there are certain things you are destined never to choose. So in essence they become your experience of the future. What your future is like is determined by the pattern and nature of your state, beliefs, thoughts, and feelings in this present moment.

Many people ask whether fortune-telling is accurate or not, and similar things are the same. Among the possibilities of your future, among the infinite possibilities of your future, he sees one of them. Why does fortune-telling require the person to be present, or require the person to give him some information? He wants to see your present state. He grasps the nature of your present thoughts and feelings, and among the many possibilities of your future, he knows you may have twelve possible futures -- based on the pattern of your present thoughts and feelings, he can infer that you will definitely choose one of them. So when he predicts what your future will be like, it is often very accurate.

And at the same time he gives you a reinforcement: saying what your future will be like. Then in your mind, won't you imagine what your future will be like? The things he predicts for you will create an imagination in your mind, and the thing you imagine will be realized in that space of possibilities, and then it will reinforce such a belief of yours, and you will follow along with it, thinking he was so right, so right.

Because among the various probable selves, there is a leaking, interactive connection with one another. Tuning in to future events is possible for you. The future you is also a probable you, and you can communicate with him as well. Suppose you continue along the direction of your present life, you might encounter an unfortunate event. But aren't there still many possibilities in the future? If you tune your focus not to this bad thing but to another probable thing, when you place your attention focus on that thing, you can avoid this present event. So this session says a great deal about methods for changing the past and changing the future -- what he says are some basic methods, but you can try them out.

For example, what is it like? You might have a dream about that event and be scared half to death. But such a dream is actually information brought by a probable self who has indeed already experienced that event. You feel you had a dream, and in the dream a particularly terrifying thing scared you half to death, the one thing you least wanted to happen happened. He says that dream is actually a probable you who, in another time and space, after experiencing it, came to bring you a message saying, "That thing was truly terrifying, I'm telling you." And so at this time, you feel it in your dream.

I think many people have seen this. In ancient times in our culture people often said "dreams are the opposite" -- when I dreamed of many bad things, our elders would tell us, "Don't worry, these bad things won't happen, because dreams are the opposite." Why do they say this? It tells you: actually the things in that dream are things another probable you has already experienced, so they won't be experienced again by you here. That is what it means.

So a child, therefore, may receive in a dream information sent by the future self, and this information has such a nature that it completely changes his entire life. This can be seen in many science fiction novels or in many people's memoirs and biographies: when I was little I had a dream, and in the dream I was told to choose this and not to do that. And that decision changed his life. He doesn't know what that dream was about, who the person speaking to him in the dream was, or why he was given such a hint. This passage tells you that actually this is very likely yourself -- the future you going back to the past, telling you in a dream not to do that thing, that the result of that thing is like that, and that you should choose this instead.

All Probabilities Exist Simultaneously

The "present" of the entire entity exists. All the probable yous, in this very instant, all exist. There is no such thing as past, present, future. All the divisions—which one is you, which one is the probable you, the distinctions between you and the probable you, including the distinctions between present and future—are all illusions.

Therefore one probable self can reach out a hand to another, because they exist in the present, with past, present, and future existing simultaneously. And through these inner communications, what you call the various probable selves begin to understand what the nature of their own entity is. In their inner communication, besides helping one another, reminding one another, reaching out a hand to one another, in the course of communicating with one another they also discover: there are this many probable selves in existence, and then through these choices that may have been experienced, he comes to realize what his own entity actually is.

What does this mean? In other words, when you do something there are ten choices, but you only choose three of them—why did you only choose these three? Because the other seven simply do not fit you. For example, suppose: you broke up with your boyfriend, and you have many choices—you could poison him, you could kill him, you could find some small-time gangster to beat him up, you could take revenge on him, you could cheat on him with his best friend and then humiliate him. But you would not choose those. You would only choose the range that is normal for you, the range you should choose. This range might have three or four choices, but do these three or four choices all fit your character, your personality, and your quality as a person? Of these three choices you picked one, and the remaining seven you did not choose—those are simply not you, those are not things you would do.

But those seven do not mean other people would not choose them. Perhaps another girl would pick two from those seven—that is entirely possible—but that is the nature of that girl's entity, not the nature of your entity. So through the three or four you chose, these are all things you wanted to do, and only after experiencing each of them separately can they combine into a complete you. Otherwise, would your you be rather thin? You only chose one of them, and you do not know what would have happened with the things you did not choose. So he gives you a kind of probability, letting you experience all the things you did not choose, so that finally you can form a complete understanding of the nature of your own entity. Now you understand why the structure is like this.

The Many Possibilities of Civilizations

Now let us steer this toward other explorations, involving entire civilizations. For just as we as individuals have our probable destinies, so too do civilizations, nations, or inhabitants, or a group, or a planetary system. The Earth you know and have experienced has had many different aspects of development -- not just one path of development. And there is a deep unconscious-level connection that unifies all such "manifestations."

The Earth has many versions, and the development of human civilization has many versions, and all of these are connected by an inner unconscious level that unifies these "manifestations." Just as I said earlier, when you make choices you will not choose those that completely do not fit your persona's setup, in the same way, the development of our civilization does not mean that all possibilities exist, but rather that there are certain possibilities that fit the characteristics of this civilization's development. These choices have a certain inner connectedness among them.

For example, if we humans now assume that a war would destroy the whole world, does this possibility exist? It does. But you cannot imagine a choice that could not exist or is not there -- that kind of civilizational progression cannot exist. So there is an inner connection among them, and only then can all such "manifestations" be unified.

In their own way, even atoms in their own way -- here he is talking about atoms and molecules -- they too retain memory of the various forms they have experienced. Here he speaks of the extremely macroscopic planets and human civilizations, and then of the extremely microscopic molecules and atoms. Thus the individuals who make up any given civilization, in the depths of their own hearts, also retain inner knowledge of the experiments and trials, the successes and failures, involved in another layer of this people's past reality.

What he means is that among the many possibilities of our civilization, many may be failed and cruel ones. These possible outcomes, under their inner unified connection and unified communication mechanism, have a very important influence on us in the present. They give us knowledge. Why do we humans not choose the path of self-destruction through atomic bombs? A large part of the reason is that those of us in the reality where that possibility occurred have been constantly reminding us -- reminding each of us, do not do this.

In certain probable realities, Christ as you know him did not prevail; in some, men have never been in charge; in some, it has always been a matriarchal society, and it still is a matriarchal society to this day; in others, the composition of matter follows entirely different paths -- matter, that is, the composition of our atoms and molecules, is not at all in the way we have it now.

In fact, all these possibilities are right in the air around you. They do not exist somewhere else; they are right around us. I describe it as faithfully as I can, but I must speak in terms that are more or less familiar to you. So to some degree, "truth" -- he puts "truth" in quotation marks, not the real truth, but truth that is approached step by step -- "truth" must be filtered through your own patterns, your conceptual patterns, before you have any hope of understanding it.

How should this be talked about? He says these possible things exist in the world around us, but you simply cannot recognize them, and you do not feel that they exist. It is very hard for him to speak in a way you can understand; he can only describe it faithfully, because they do exist around you -- that is a fact. But to speak in terms familiar to you, it inevitably is not the essence of the truth -- because it is originally something that language cannot describe, and the moment I describe it, it is no longer the truth. Yet I still have to describe it in a way you can understand.

After the description, you yourselves will have your own thoughts, judgments, logical thinking abilities, and perceptual systems. And then only by using our logical thinking, our perceptual systems, and our belief systems to filter what he says -- what filtering means is that we judge which parts he says are right, which sentences are wrong, which are nonsense, and which I feel have some merit. It is in this process of judging and thinking that you have the possibility of hoping to understand it more deeply. You will find that some of what is said here seems a bit off, but there are parts I do agree with; and the parts I agree with do not match up with what I understand, and there is still a great gulf of incomprehension in between. What exactly is that gulf? How do I think it through and understand it thoroughly? Only then do you want to seek the truth, only then do you want to find the truth. Without such a process, if this truth had no connection whatsoever with your concepts and your present understanding, you would not want to engage with it at all; you would have no resonance with it whatsoever, and you would not want to explore it, because you would feel it is too far away from you.

He then makes a summary. You are surrounded by other influences and events, and among these, there are certain ones that you can perceive in your three-dimensional reality. You accept those things that happen in the three-dimensional world as real, without realizing that they are only part of other events. In the places your vision cannot see, you think reality also comes to an end -- right where our physical eyes cannot see, we think that reality also ends, and the world no longer exists.

Therefore, I say again, when you are unoccupied, you must train yourself to examine between events and events, between objects and objects, and to look inward at yourself. Do not only look at external events; consider the relationships between events and events, and between objects and objects. Pay special attention to those things that seem to make no sense -- that is, those impulses he mentioned earlier, those impulses of well-intentioned intrusion, those inspirations. Who is inspiration? Inspiration is information given to you by other probable yous. These things that seem to make no sense, because they are often clues to larger events that you cannot see -- clues given to you in advance of a larger event that cannot be seen in the three-dimensional world.

There is another section later, specifically discussing the world of probabilities, the probabilities of matter. Earlier he discussed the probabilities of such things, and in the next section he discusses that matter itself also exists as probability.

From Atoms and Microseconds Onward

Now let us look at the content of this session. In the previous two sessions, we introduced Seth's description of the system of probabilities: every one of our ideas, every thought, every action that was not realized in this world, that was not chosen, may have already been realized and actualized in another time and space. At this point many people will ask a core question: what you are talking about are all ideas and thoughts, yet Seth also says that in that world, everything is just as real as it is in this world -- this does not match common sense. This body of mine is here, so how can it also be there? This matter is here, that object is there, so how can it also go there? In those parallel-universe worlds, how does the matter inside them exist? Matter is only one thing, so how can it be both here and there?

So in this session, Seth focuses on explaining what the state of this matter itself, the matter of the three-dimensional world as we understand it, is like within the system of probabilities.

Session 567

The nature of matter, as far as the so-called three-dimensional world is concerned -- the nature of this matter that we consider to be real -- has not yet been understood. (Session 567)

He says that you perceive it, perceive the existence of this matter, at a certain "phase," that is, at a certain segment of time.

Now in your terms, in the terms of our three-dimensional world, and putting it as simply as possible: beyond the matter you see, there are other forms of matter.

That is to say, beyond this three-dimensional form of matter that we are able to see, there are other forms of matter. That matter does not exist in the way that the matter of our three-dimensional world is sensed.

These forms are quite real and vivid. ... To those who respond to that particular plane of activity, they are quite "concrete."

The "particular plane of activity" spoken of here is the plane of activity you did not choose. For example, you did not choose to go meet your friend, but you did think about going to meet them. This activity of meeting your friend, on that plane of activity, the material world there is also quite real and concrete. So, in terms of probabilities, you choose certain actions, and as he said in the previous session, you unconsciously transform them into concrete events and objects, and then you perceive them.

To sum up the probability system: you choose certain actions, and you unconsciously turn them into concrete events or objects, and then you perceive them. The sequence is like this: first there is a process of "becoming" -- you unconsciously change it, and after changing it, you then perceive it. And what about those events that were not chosen?

They are also sent out by you and projected into these other forms.

In the present moment you project it into a concrete event, a concrete object, and then you perceive it, and you consider it to be something that really happened. The ones you did not choose, you projected into another form.

Now the behavior of atoms and molecules is involved here --

Because once again, these atoms and molecules only appear in your physical universe at a certain "phase."

That is to say, atoms, molecules, these fundamental particles that make up matter -- that is, the substance of matter itself -- only appear in our world, in this universe, at a certain segment of time; at other times, they appear elsewhere.

Their activity can only be perceived by you within a certain range of vibrational frequencies.

That is to say, the substance of matter can only be perceived by us as material existence at a specific vibrational frequency; outside of this frequency, we cannot sense the existence of this object. This is related to the vibrational frequency of strings in quantum mechanics.

In string theory, it is held that the different vibrational frequencies of each string cause it to manifest outwardly as a certain kind of particle state. The fundamental particles of the world are all composed of these strings at different vibrational frequencies. For those interested in the theory of strings and quantum mechanics, you may go and study it; those who are not interested need not look further. To put it simply, the vibrational frequency of a string is extremely high, basically vibrating at a superluminal speed¹¹. We can understand it as the vibrational frequency having already surpassed the speed of light, which is why it has multiple dimensions. String theory holds that strings actually exist in a 10-dimensional or 11-dimensional space¹² (depending on the viewpoint of the theory), of which 4 are manifest dimensions -- the dimensions our three-dimensional world can sense -- and 6 are curled-up dimensions, curled up in extremely tiny spaces that you cannot know about, that is, they are not unfolded. String theory has its own very complex system; for now you can focus on M-theory, which will give you some general introduction. For those not interested in quantum mechanics, you can probably just skip it.

The nature of matter: quantum mechanics now holds that the vibrational frequency of a string determines what kind of particle it becomes, and only then can it be seen by you. This is what our scientists now know. Outside the vibrational frequency we can cognize, you cannot even see this particle, nor can you see the string. So the string emerges directly out of the void: when its vibrational frequency is within the range we can perceive, you treat it as a kind of particle existing; if the frequency exceeds this range, you cannot see the string, nor can you see the existence of this particle, and this matter simply does not exist. We just need to have a general idea of this.

For example, when your scientists examine them, they do not examine the nature of an atom.

When observing atoms -- including fundamental particles, an atom has a nucleus, the nucleus contains neutrons and protons, protons and neutrons themselves are composed of quarks, and quarks can be divided further into even finer particles, and ultimately that string is already very, very small -- scientists are not now exploring the nature of an atom.

You are only exploring the characteristics of an atom as it acts or appears within your system.

We have not discovered the nature of the atom; we have only seen some of the regularities and characteristics of its activity in our three-dimensional world.

Its greater reality completely escapes their attention.

Let us speak briefly about this. Quantum mechanics began to have its foundational theories in the 1920s¹³, but at the very beginning the research was all in the fields of theory and mathematics; it only truly entered the experimental stage later on. The later string theory, M-theory, and superstring theory also only gradually took shape in the later period -- the 1980s and 1990s. Although this theory existed early on, it was only later that it truly formed a complete system, including things measured in the laboratory, such as quantum entanglement and other phenomena, which were gradually verified later. So when Seth was writing this book, he had already completely explained this matter: our cognition of microscopic particles stops at the regularities of their manifestation in the three-dimensional world; as for the nature of this atom and particle, we are basically completely ignorant. Why it is this way, we do not know; we know that it is this way, but we do not know why it is this way.

He begins to explain:

You know that light has a spectrum.

We know that the frequency of red light is lower than that of violet light; violet light has a higher frequency and a shorter wavelength -- we need not concern ourselves with that. He says that light has a spectrum, and matter also has a "spectrum." Light has a spectrum; does matter have a matter-spectrum? This is very easy to understand -- light is just faster, matter is just slower in its movement; their essence is the same, and light itself is also a kind of matter.

Compared to certain others, your system of physical reality is not very dense.

We think that our solid objects -- tables, stools, metals, these materials -- are all very sturdy and very dense; compared to other matter, it is not dense.

You give objects dimensional introductions such as length, width, and height, and these only begin to hint at the various dimensions that are possible.

We mark coordinates, length, width, and height for any object in the three-dimensional world -- this is only one of its many different dimensions, the one you can sense in three-dimensional space. So, whether it is a light spectrum or a matter spectrum -- many spiritual writings say that frequency is very important, and what they mean is simply that the vibrational frequencies of different objects are perceived differently by you.

Some systems are much heavier or much lighter than yours.

This does not necessarily involve what you know as "weight." Much heavier or much lighter generally refers to density, not weight. Why not weight? If you have studied physics, you know that weight only exists when there is a gravitational field. So here it should refer to density.

Probable actions, then, enter into systems of matter that are just as definite and just as solid as your own system.

Within those probable actions that you did not adopt, they enter into another material system that is just as definite and just as solid as ours. The matter in that time and space is just as solid as the matter of our present three-dimensional world.

You are used to thinking in single-line terms ... therefore you think of the events that you know as complete things or actions.

Human beings generally think in a single-line manner. We treat the things we know as complete, continuous, indivisible things: this event is complete, this object is also complete, it is just here.

You do not realize that what you perceive is only a small portion of their multidimensional existence.

Whether it is an event or an object, what you perceive is only a small portion of its existence in many dimensions.

Broadly speaking, it is impossible to separate one physical event from all those probable events.

From a larger perspective, it is impossible for you to separate this one thing that we consider to have actually happened from those related things that did not happen -- because the probability that happened and those probabilities that did not happen are equally real. They are one; they are different aspects of one thing, or different faces of one action. We think we have only seen the action that actually happened, and we think it has only this one face; in fact it has many faces, and those probabilities that did not happen are all among the faces of this action.

By the same reasoning, the same principle:

Basically it is impossible to separate the "you" that you know from the probable you that you do not know.

In other words, it is basically impossible to separate the you that you cognize in the present moment from those yous that exist in the space of probable realities. You are tightly connected; you are different faces of one entity.

There are, however, always inner channels between the various probable events. ... Since they are all manifestations of one action in its becoming.

The manifestations of one action in its becoming include both what is realized in our space, what actually happened, and also those probable actions in other spaces that did not happen. All of these added together are the manifestations of this action's formation; only all of these together are the manifestations of its action.

The dimensions between these events ... are an illusion.

Since the true form of this one action, its reality, includes all probable actions, and only when all these probable actions are gathered together can they truly reflect the action itself -- then we say that these probable actions occur in different times and spaces. And these actions occurring in different times and spaces, and the action that has already happened in our present time and space, are essentially the same action, merely displayed on different facets. If this holds, then when we say that those different times and spaces are all illusions: because the entity of this action includes all these actions, and you have distributed it into different times and spaces for manifestation, therefore these times and spaces are an illusion to you. Is this a bit... I hope you can understand what I mean.

The physical brain alone ... cannot clearly perceive these connections.

Using our human brain, the physical brain, cannot clearly perceive -- but it can vaguely perceive; the word he uses here is very interesting.

Its inner counterpart ... can sometimes perceive the far greater dimensions of any given event.

Looking inward, the inward counterpart of the brain -- when we say looking inward, we call it the heart. Many things your brain does not know, or your thoughts cannot be aware of, but your heart can sense. Among those things that did not happen, your heart can sense them.

Then through sudden insights, or through understandings that cannot be adequately expressed in words, you can perceive.

This perception of the heart uses two methods: one is sudden insight, and the other is an understanding that cannot be expressed in words. Many people, after reading some of the Seth material, or reading other spiritual material, have that kind of realization and understanding that cannot be described in words. That feeling of joy, that emotion and realization itself, cannot be spoken in words -- this is what he means here. So in some places, including in Zen Buddhism, there is the notion of sudden enlightenment, with the stick and the shout -- hitting you with a stick, shouting at you every day -- these are all among the methods for bringing about sudden enlightenment. Of course, you can also gradually come to realization through long-term study and communication, without needing this kind of sudden enlightenment. In fact, sudden enlightenment is also an accumulation of realization, an accumulation from quantitative change to qualitative change. The same is true of the Seth material: after you read it several times, you will suddenly have a kind of realization, and this realization only comes after accumulation.

As I have often said, the time that you think you know ... does not exist. Yet in your terms, if the basic nature of the atom were ever known to you, you would understand the true nature of time.

Time does not exist; he repeatedly emphasizes this. Time is one of our illusions, but we cannot understand this matter. If you once understand the basic nature of the atom, you will be able to understand the true nature of time: once you understand how the matter of this world is constituted -- that its essence is fundamentally composed of the vibrational frequencies of energy -- you will have a deeper understanding of the nature of time.

From another standpoint, an atom can be compared to a microsecond.

He draws an equal sign between a piece of matter and a unit of time. This sentence has an extremely far-reaching meaning, a meaning that cannot be described in words. A simple explanation: an atom -- the reason you regard it as an atom is because it is perceived by you within a specific period of time, say this one microsecond, and only then is it this atom; outside of this microsecond, it is no longer this atom, it is something existing in another time and space, in a form you do not know at all.

Let me put it this way and you will probably understand: what you consider to be the existence of matter is only that it allows you to see it within a certain time cycle. Outside of this cycle -- for example, if it changes fifty times per second -- at one-fiftieth of a second it is here, at two-fiftieths of a second it is in another time and space, at three-fiftieths of a second it is in a third time and space, at four-fiftieths of a second it is in a fourth time and space. What you can perceive is this one-fiftieth of a second; you see it, and you think it exists in this one-fiftieth of a second. Because your perceptual system is relatively slow -- the human physical perceptual system is an indirect perceptual system, going through neurons, nerves, and then the brain's reactions, and so on -- with this kind of indirect perceptual system, you cannot discern the true reality of things. So when this atom flashes at such a speed, we think it has always existed. It is like the fluorescent light you see that seems to be constantly on, because it is flashing at a rate of one-fiftieth of a second -- it is just that simple a principle. Actually, the speed I just gave as an example is much slower than the real one; it is not one-fiftieth of a second, but one hundreds of thousands, one hundreds of millions of a second, flashing at that speed. So this sentence is very philosophical: comparing an atom to a microsecond, matter and time begin to be equated -- matter has its existence, while time is an illusion.

Let us continue reading:

It seems that an atom "exists" steadily for a certain amount of time.

He added the word "exists" -- it seems -- as he said earlier, it seems to be this way, but in fact it is not.

They may be said to appear and disappear gradually.

If you slow time down very, very much, you can see these atoms slowly, slowly appearing in our three-dimensional world, and then slowly, slowly disappearing, repeating endlessly. What we see is the instant when it appears; the instant when it does not appear, we cannot perceive it. But because of this repetition, this periodic disappearance and reappearance, you think it has been steadily sitting there all along.

It fluctuates in a highly probable pattern and rhythm.

In the human system, only in those moments of fluctuation can you see it.

To scientists, therefore, the atom seems to exist steadily. They do not perceive that at times the atom is "not here."

I will not elaborate too much here -- our scientists have now discovered that our material world is indeed like this: where a particle will actually appear, we are completely unable to predict. This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle¹⁴, the very foundation of quantum mechanics at its beginning. The uncertainty principle means that given a microscopic particle -- it must be an extremely microscopic particle, ordinary particles will not do, a microscopic particle in a quantum state -- when you want to measure its kinetic energy, you cannot measure its position; when you want to measure its position, you cannot measure its kinetic energy. In other words, if you can measure where it is, you cannot know what its energy is; if you want to know its energy, you cannot know where it is -- you can only have one of the two. And we know that to determine the complete state of an atom, you must know both its kinetic energy and its position; only the two together can define this atom. Yet as early as the 1920s, it was already proven through scientific deduction and demonstration that this is absolutely impossible. So there is a common joke: Does God play dice? That is, the motion of the smallest particles in the microscopic world is something we are completely unable to grasp -- you do not know when or where it will appear.

However, it does have a certain regularity; as Seth said earlier, it can be anticipated. What is it that can be anticipated? It has a certain probability: although I do not know where you will appear, I know the probability of your appearing in certain places, and I can express it with a function. So the wave function itself is a probability wave; this wave is not an energy wave with amplitude and energy as we imagine, it is a probability wave -- the probability of where this thing will appear.

Since not everyone studies physics, let us put it simply and generally: the foundation of our entire world's existence is a probabilistic quantum state. What is a quantum? A quantum is the smallest unit, indivisible. Traditional physics held that anything in the world could be divided infinitely, that any object could be cut in half and then in half again and again; but scientists discovered that this is not so -- when matter reaches a smallest unit, it cannot be divided further. It is not at the level of the atom; it is at a scale much smaller than the atom that it can no longer be divided. That which cannot be divided further, scientists now believe, is the string. The so-called quantum state means that when matter becomes small enough, it is no longer continuous; it is in chunks, in segments, in discrete portions. This is completely different from our cognition of the world: at the extreme of the microscopic world, it is grain by grain. That unit is extremely, extremely small; its length is generally at the Planck length, that is, ten to the negative 35th power meters¹⁵. How small is ten to the negative 35th power meters? The scale of the atomic nucleus is at ten to the negative 15th to negative 16th power¹⁶, which means it is about ten to the negative 20th power smaller than the atomic nucleus. What kind of concept is that? It is like this: if the Earth were an atomic nucleus, then the string would be about the size of a cherry pit -- just that big. The scale relationship between them exceeds human imagination. These things are all derived theoretically, mathematically, and physically; they cannot be observed in experiments. Humanity's most advanced means of observation today has only reached the level of the atomic nucleus; anything smaller, people cannot see, no matter what kind of microscope you use. So the Planck length operates at such a scale of space. At that scale of space, matter is no longer subdivided; it is in discrete portions; and the laws of motion there completely exceed all of physicists' observations and predictions. All of our traditional physical theories, principles, and formulas completely fail at that scale, which is why quantum mechanics came into being.

We have briefly touched on some relations in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics there is a classic parable, I think it was Einstein who said it -- I forget who said it -- he said: When you are not looking at the moon, is the moon there? You think the moon is always there; actually the moon is not always there; it is there for a while, and not there for a while. When you look at it, it may be there; when you are not looking, it may have gone somewhere else. Of course, for humans, the moon is always there, because its frequency of change is too fast. But he used this vivid metaphor to make everyone think: when you are not looking at the moon, is the moon there?

All right, let us continue. The previous two sessions discussed the probability of events -- events can happen here, and those events that did not happen happened in other times and spaces. Now he is saying: are those events that happened in other times and spaces equally real and credible? How did that matter get over there? What is that probable you like? Are they material?

In the intervals when they are not projected into the physical world ... the atoms "appear."

When the atom is not in our physical world -- it is like a strobe light, flashing every second -- when it is not in this physical world, where is it? It is in another time and space. In that instant, it appears in that time and space.

In that time and space, the atoms ... are perceived.

In that time and space, the atoms vibrate in the same way, and the instant the atom manifests in that time and space is captured. So in that time-space system, the atoms also seem very stable -- in that time and space, matter is also very stable, and atoms are also very stable.

It has many such fluctuating instants ... and naturally, your system knows nothing of them.

We did not know. Now we know; at that time we did not yet know.

Nor of the ultimate actions that exist within them, the many matters, universes, and systems.

We do not know that within this tiny particle there are many other time-space systems, and that many other material universes and systems exist simultaneously. We only stare at its affairs in the three-dimensional world, because we do not acknowledge the existence of other dimensions. We only see what our eyes see, and only believe in what is real to the eyes, or what can be verified through experiments; what cannot be seen, what cannot be cognized, we consider not to exist. We all know that this itself is an extremely naive behavior, but people cannot help it. Why? Because your eyes are themselves material things, and your experimental instruments are also material things -- if you use a material thing to observe the non-material existence of something, how can you observe it? It is like the joke someone made: when electric current was first invented, someone asked Edison what electricity actually looked like. Edison explained it to him at length, saying that electricity flows inside the wires, and our lamps light up. The man then asked: then take the electricity out and let me see it. Who can take electricity out and show it to you? You cannot see it. But in nature we can see the track of lightning, which is a kind of manifestation. The currents flowing through your body, your brain waves -- how can you see them? Now, with the development of instruments, we can also see these things that the naked eye cannot see. Including those electromagnetic signals -- the signals emitted by cell phones, WiFi signals -- these are all wireless, invisible to the naked eye, but can you say they do not exist? For those existences that we can now discover and detect through instruments, is it not possible that for those unknown worlds, we have not yet discovered the instruments to detect them? If we discovered the instruments, could we also see those things that were previously invisible? Like those thought-form images we spoke of, those things projected by intention -- we now all consider them not to exist; if one day our instruments are sensitive enough, could we also see them? I will not give more examples of this kind. So this is a problem that our science currently faces, and quantum mechanics is now relatively close to the nature of matter -- close, I can only say it is close; it has not yet truly understood this material thing.

The same kind of behavior also occurs on a deep, basic, secret, and unexplored level of the psyche.

That is to say, material behavior happens this way, and the same is true on the level of the psyche.

The physically based consciousness responds to only one phase of the atom's activity, and "wakes up" and responds to that particular existence, but there are other fluctuations in between. In these fluctuations the consciousness is focused upon entirely different systems of reality, each of which "wakes up" and responds, yet is unaware that anything is "missing," and remembers only that particular fluctuation to which it responds.

Many people, when reading this part of the Seth material, do not know what he is trying to say; they half understand -- it seems they understand, but they do not know what he means. What he wants to say is: on the level of our consciousness, we respond to only one specific phase of the atom. Let me give a simple analogy to explain this matter, otherwise you may really find it hard to understand what he is saying.

For example, suppose your friend calls and invites you out to dinner, and you refuse, saying you want to stay home and read, you want to study the Seth material, you are not going to the gathering. But you also want to go to the gathering with him -- you also want to relax a bit -- yet when you think about it, the Seth material is more attractive, so you decide not to go. But what about the you who wanted to go? Is there not a you who wanted to go? At this moment a subtle change occurs: the thought of wanting to go will take your body... your body is also made up of atoms and molecules, you can recognize that, right? At its most basic, your body is also composed of those strings, but let us not talk about strings; your body is composed of molecules and atoms. As I said earlier, the molecules and atoms of your body flicker in and out, now present, now absent, and you can only perceive the state in which they are present; the state in which they are absent you cannot perceive. At this point we can understand it this way: the you who is going to the appointment, that state of consciousness, can perceive those atoms on the body of the you who wanted to go to the appointment, can perceive that version of wanting to go to the appointment. In other words, at this moment your body divides into two parts: one part is the you sitting here reading, and the other part is the you going to the appointment. Every atom of the body of the you going to the appointment displays the aspect of going to the appointment; and the consciousness that wanted to go to the appointment -- the you of that thought, that is, the probable you who went to the appointment -- can perceive the existence of that aspect of the atoms in your body that wanted to go to the appointment.

Suppose this atom changes twice in one second: once it is the you sitting here reading, and once it is the you getting up and going out to the appointment. And the consciousness of the you sitting here reading can only perceive the state in which this atom stays here and does not go out; the aspect of your body's atoms going out can only be perceived by the consciousness of the you who went out. The two of you are perceiving two different aspects of one atom. Therefore, in another space-time, the you who went out also feels your physical body moving along with you, truly and vividly, and it believes that the one who did not go out and stayed home studying is only a thought, does not exist, and did not really happen. And your consciousness at this moment only perceives the state of this atom going out; the consciousness of you staying at home only responds to and perceives the aspect of the atoms in the body that stayed at home.

As we said earlier, according to Seth's theory -- what he said earlier is all quantum mechanics theory -- the basic unit composing this world is the unit of consciousness, the CU. Identical or similar units of consciousness will form an energy unit -- an electromagnetic energy unit or emotional energy unit, called an EE unit, that is, a basic unit formed by two letters E, two E's. And countless such energy units form a particle, form a particle of our three-dimensional world. Then we know: actually the particles that compose our three-dimensional world are themselves conscious. Therefore Seth says every atom and every molecule is conscious. Where does consciousness come from? From the essence that constitutes it, it is composed of units of consciousness, so it is inherently conscious. This is also the point quantum mechanics has never broken through -- quantum mechanics does not believe these "dead" things are conscious, so no matter how it studies them, it cannot thoroughly understand how these particles move. It cannot understand, because it always treats them as dead things to study, and it does not believe the things of this material world are themselves conscious; this is what it cannot accept and understand. Would that not become pantheism? That would become the ancient Indian idea that all things in the world have spirit -- it cannot accept that viewpoint. It only believes they are dead things, and by trying to understand them as dead things, it cannot understand them.

According to Seth's theory, then, you know: every cell in your body, and the atoms and molecules within the cells, are all conscious. Let me put it crudely: all the cells of your body have one thought, the thought of wanting to stay and read; all the cells of your body also have another kind, the thought of wanting to go to the date. The cells that want to stay and read are visible to the consciousness that wants to stay and read; the cells that want to go out to the date are invisible and nonexistent to the you who stays and reads -- just like the flashing of matter, they do not flash in your world, they exist in that world. And within the consciousness that wants to go out to the date, what it correspondingly perceives is the state of those cells that want to go out to the date. Therefore, it takes a batch of cells that want to go to the date, and that you goes to the date. I use such a crude principle to explain it, and I hope you can understand how this probability and the existence of another space-time come about -- that is exactly how it happens.

Therefore, in the last session it was said that your thoughts are very important, your ideas are very important. I will stop here on this point, because if this were expanded further, several days and nights would not be enough to finish. That is, every flash of your mind -- I wonder if everyone can understand this? At this stage, I estimate many people may understand, and many people still do not understand at this point. In other words, let me say it more clearly: every energy unit of yours, every EE unit, is conscious -- you must understand this. Every cell and every EE unit is conscious. When you want to go out on a date, the cells also know it. The cell itself also exists as multiple possibilities; it itself is also material, and one of its possibilities is wanting to go on a date -- I use this example, but it is not necessarily about dating; it is a state of existence, an aspect of existence. That original energy unit, the EE unit that wants to go on the date, manifests into a material existence, that is, a you in the state of going on the date. The moment the thought of wanting to go on the date is generated, it causes all the cells of your body to generate an image of a you who is going on the date; only that image is invisible in your three-dimensional world, but in another three-dimensional world it truly exists. Therefore, you have countless分身 existing simultaneously -- you can only perceive the body of your present thought, while the bodies of your other thoughts are perceived by the probable you of those other thoughts. Understand it this way.

Once you understand this thoroughly, many problems will all become clear at once.

All of these fluctuations are actually simultaneous.

Here, just like Buddhism, it first tells you a truth, and just as you have a sudden realization, it overturns you. What we just described was changing -- dividing one second into many parts, this fraction of a second here, that fraction of a second there -- he says this is only an analogy for you; in reality, what is it? It is simultaneous existence. It does not even have that period, does not even have that strobing; it all happens simultaneously in one instant. So it progresses layer by layer, and in this process of progression, it is a process of infinitely approaching the truth. Moreover, these fluctuations are simultaneous -- not first here, then taking turns. Although the frequency of taking turns is very fast, equivalent to simultaneity, in essence it is simultaneity.

From your viewpoint, it might seem that there should be gaps between the fluctuations.

Since we are talking about fluctuations and periods, are there gaps between one period and the next? He says there are none.

Probable systems all exist simultaneously.

The examples he just gave and the stories he told are already the best; he cannot describe it any better. Using wave-like fluctuation to represent it is already the closest, but actually it is not even fluctuation.

Basically, in those terms, the atom is in all of these other systems at once.

The atom is both here, and here, and there -- once you think this through, you will understand why simultaneity of existence is spoken of, and why it is said that time does not exist. He said earlier: when you understand the nature of the atom, you will know that the nature of time does not exist. If there were still periodic existence, then time would still be in effect, there would still be a frequency. As soon as frequency is mentioned, it is a range of vibration within a fixed time, so time would still exist. He says the essence -- the atom -- has no time; it exists simultaneously.

You can imagine time as a vertical axis, a Y-axis: it has no existence; it is not an X-axis, a concept flowing from left to right -- that is our human cognition. Time is a point, a vertical axis. Standing at this present point, time is the very center zero point, the origin, of the three-dimensional world. At this origin, you can look in all directions, and what do you see? The simultaneous existence of all probabilities. If this origin is your universe, and this framework is your universe, then looking in all directions, it is all you. In these different probable space-times, you exist simultaneously. So you can understand why it is said that you live in the past, and also in the future, and also in the present. Past and future are both illusions you have about time; what you truly live in is the present, is now. There is no past and no future; those are all your fantasies. Think about it carefully: where is the future? Where is the past? As long as you truly question yourself, you will understand -- there is no future; the future is your present. This may sound a bit too philosophical and dialectical, and hard to understand, but if you analyze it carefully you will understand.

You as a person exist simultaneously in the present, and also simultaneously in the past, and also simultaneously in the future -- then how can you have present, past, and future? Even atoms exist simultaneously, remember? Therefore the past you, the present you, and the future you are all this you; the you that exists in each probable space-time is also this you. You yourself are a you existing in multidimensional space; this is your original face. When you understand this, only then can you truly understand what your essence looks like -- your essence is omnipresent, everywhere, and there is you everywhere. You exist in all space-times, and in all spaces of probability there is you; you exist simultaneously. Let us pause here for now, and you can roughly understand the simultaneous existence of atoms, the simultaneous existence of matter, and also your own simultaneous existence.

Now the ultra-rapid pulsations and fluctuations I have mentioned... are so smooth and "brief" that you would not notice the fluctuation.

These ultra-rapid pulsations and fluctuations are so brief that you cannot feel them fluctuating. But viewed from your earthly end:

There are also "slower," "broader," "longer" fluctuations.

Here he reverses it again. Actually there is no such thing as fluctuation, but in order to help you understand, he brings out fluctuation again: you can understand the atom as vibrating and pulsating rapidly. This pulsation is too fast, too smooth, and the intervals too brief; when it reaches a certain speed, you think it is not moving -- but actually it is always moving, flashing rapidly between presence and absence, so we do not notice it fluctuating. But from the perspective of our human world, there are also many fluctuations much slower and much broader than atomic vibration. What are they? Now he begins to explain:

These fluctuations affect entirely different systems of existence.

The previous fluctuation affected particles, the atoms of material existence. These broader, slower, longer fluctuations affect entirely different systems of existence:

Not any that are closely connected with your own system.

They have no close connection with our present three-dimensional world system.

These kinds of consciousnesses have experiences that would be extremely alien to you.

Our human consciousness corresponds to the rapid vibration of atoms -- we can be aware of this instant here and that instant there, and we imagine this cycle of change as very short and very fast; our consciousness responds to this kind of fluctuation. There is another kind of consciousness that responds to those longer events -- for example, vibrating once every few decades, once every few centuries; to fluctuations on such a small scale, it completely ignores them and has no sensation at all. Therefore, in such a system, human beings would find it extremely alien.

Look at the example he gives below:

One such fluctuation might take up several thousand of our human years... and the events occurring within it would be perceived as a "present moment."

Several thousand years pass in the snap of a finger -- it does not even have the time of a finger snap; it is just an instant. So in that consciousness's understanding, it takes several thousand years as one vibration frequency, one vibration period. The span of this one vibration period, at the level of atoms, may exist only on the scale of microseconds, femtoseconds, or even smaller units of time. And another kind of consciousness cannot perceive microseconds, femtoseconds, or even the level of seconds; what it perceives is a period of several thousand years of our human time -- our several thousand years are only one period of vibration to it. So this consciousness is completely alien to us: it feels our several thousand years as just an instant, a moment.

These kinds of consciousnesses, these kinds of entities... also include the consciousnesses of many probable selves and probable systems.

It is the same; it also has many probable systems and probable selves existing.

And these probable selves and probable systems are all vividly... clearly experienced as "multiple presents."

On their scale, it is equally vivid.

This "multiple present" can be altered at any of an infinite number of points. The "infinite" is not meant to exist as one infinite line.

It is not like what we call infinity, a line; it is not like that.

But refers to the numberless probabilities and probable combinations that spring from each consciousness.

It is not a line; it is a combination of countless rays radiating outward from one point, a combination of numberless probabilities.

These entities with their "multiple presents" may or may not perceive your particular system. Their "multiple present" may or may not include "earth." You may be a portion of their "multiple present" without knowing it.

To put it in far narrower terms, your probable realities are the "multiple present."

(He paused for a moment -- why did he pause? He did not know how to say it.)

The image of an eye within an eye, and within that eye another eye, repeated endlessly, may serve to help you understand.

Then this chapter ends.

What do these last three paragraphs mean? It seems to be a very difficult point to understand. What he means is this: there is a kind of cosmic consciousness, and within its reality space, the span it understands takes one thousand years, or five thousand years, of our human time as one period. Five thousand years of time in our human world is, to it, like one flash of our atoms -- a state of "present or absent," except its period is far, far longer than ours. So from this imaginative perspective, within its world -- within the world of this cosmic consciousness -- our human world may be inside it, or it may pass by within that period. Can you understand? The span between its presence and absence is too long; within five thousand years, you may be inside it, or you may not be inside it at all. And then, this universe itself has its own probabilities; it has the probabilities of multiple universes and multiple reality spaces, just as our present reality world has multiple space-times. What he wants to say in this last passage is: beyond the universe there is another universe, and beyond that universe there is another universe -- we live within layer upon layer, within an endless cycle.

In other words, the time range of the atom's consciousness is already extremely small. We now know its time scale is measured in Planck time, and Planck time is ten to the negative 34th power seconds¹⁷. Ten to the negative 34th power seconds is simply impossible to describe in words. In contemporary physics, it is believed that at this stage time cannot be divided further -- you cannot divide out one ten to the negative 35th of a second; one ten to the negative 34th of a second is the shortest time that cannot be further divided in the world we humans can perceive. The same is true of quantum mechanics: at a certain point, time cannot be said to be infinitely divisible; at Planck time, it can only be viewed segment by segment, block by block. If we consider one Planck time as one ten to the negative 34th of a second, then for those cosmic consciousnesses, this Planck time may be one ten to the positive 34th of a second, which may represent several thousand years or several tens of millions of years as one unit. So within the framework of that kind of large macroscopic universe, within the framework of the universe beyond the universe, our present universe is like this one flash of an atom, changing in an instant. The universe we are talking about here is not this three-dimensional universe, but everything and everything created by all the "All That Is" that we can presently perceive. So at this point he could not continue; he himself knew he could not go on, so he stopped -- arriving at "an eye within an eye," that is what it means.

These two sessions, including the previous one, in the end he could not continue either -- language ultimately becomes meaningless. This thing has actually already approached the basic truth of things, but it truly transcends the limits of human imagination and understanding. So at this level, understand as much as you can, and if you cannot understand, it does not matter -- it is not your problem. Was Einstein smarter than you? How many scientists? Even Einstein in the end could not understand it. Einstein could not break free from one most fundamental point -- he could not accept the fact that time does not exist; even in death he could not accept it. So he fought against quantum mechanics, absolutely refusing to accept quantum mechanics, because in quantum mechanics time ultimately does not exist and has no meaning. But Einstein would not accept it; he said it is impossible, time absolutely has meaning. Therefore in general relativity there is the space-time continuum¹⁸: time and space are one, and space-time can be transformed. He believed there is a gravitational field in space, and the gravitational field causes time to distort, and time is not constant and unchanging -- he had his own understanding of time, but he could not accept the idea that "time does not exist"; even in death he could not accept it. So he parted ways with quantum mechanics, exhausting all his debating skills, and in the early conferences he made all kinds of proofs and all kinds of hypothetical experiments -- many experiments could not actually be performed, so he devised many hypothetical experiments to prove the absurdity of quantum mechanics itself, and to prove that his own ideas were correct.

For example, he raised one of the most absurd examples, a hypothetical experiment. In the double-slit experiment -- we know the double-slit experiment is the foundation of quantum mechanics -- a particle has both its quantum state and its wave nature, which is why matter has wave-particle duality. Whether light or any particle, all have wave-particle duality: they are both in a wave state and in a particle state. Actually there are many other states, but from the angle of human observation, using the method of screen imaging, we can only observe these two states. Humans cannot understand: how can one object have two states existing at the same time? And the most crucial point is -- the appearance of the observer. When the observer is absent, it displays the nature of a wave, the state of a wave; when the observer appears, the particle immediately displays its particle state, and the wave state instantly changes into the particle state. This experiment later had many improved versions, but there is no need to go into that. This one thing alone overturned traditional physics. Scientific experiments are supposed to be objective; whether the observer is present or not, the experimental result should be the same -- you cannot say that when someone is watching the experiment gives one result, and when no one is watching it gives another result. This is one foundation of quantum mechanics: the existence of the observer affects the result of the experiment.

At this point Einstein proposed a theory: what if we let a little baby look? Let a one-month-old baby look, will it display the wave state or the particle state? And what if we let a monkey look? Will it be wave or particle? Einstein devised many experiments with a certain humiliating and provocative quality -- such experiments actually cannot be performed; how could you perform them? Can a monkey tell you what it saw? Can a one-month-old baby tell you what he saw? He used a provocative and extreme method to deny quantum mechanics. In his later years Einstein basically fought against quantum mechanics, insisting that his general relativity was correct. General relativity is indeed effective and correct within the three-dimensional world, but beyond the three-dimensional world, or when approaching the limits of objects, it is completely useless. But Einstein did not think so.

Therefore, it is perfectly normal that you cannot understand -- even Einstein's brain could not understand it. If you can understand, then that is wonderful, because then you have already surpassed Einstein. If you recognize that time does not exist, and you recognize that this world exists simultaneously in the past, present, and future -- if you recognize this, then to some degree you have already surpassed his cognition of this world.

All right, today's content ends here, because this part is indeed rather mind-bending and complex. You can combine this part with Chapter Five's discussion of how ideas create matter and how those junction points are created through energy, and that may help a bit. As for its specific demonstration and extension, in his other books he will explain it more carefully and in more detail, but not in this book -- in this book he does not want to scare you. He only wants everyone to have a basic sense of this world, even if it is just the feeling of "pulling back the curtain and letting you take a peek," so that you have a general understanding of the truth of this world, and that is enough. He does not want you to study exactly how this world is, how the specific laws change in between, how this matter flashes, and how your consciousness pairs with the consciousness of that matter -- if you understand quantum entanglement, you can probably guess a little of the relationship involved. In other words, the consciousness of the you who goes to the date, and the consciousness of the cells in your body that want to go to the date, become a pair -- similar to a state of quantum entanglement, always paired, always perceiving together. So within that time segment, they are one; and the you sitting here reading is also one, without conflict, without interference.

Today's content ends here for now; it is indeed not easy to understand, and I hope everyone can digest it slowly and understand it slowly. He will introduce more later; Chapter Seventeen will also introduce a portion about probabilities, good and evil, and religious symbols.

---

注释与核实

1. Source: Wikipedia "Conversations with God" (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E8%88%87%E7%A5%9E%E5%B0%8D%E8%A9%B1) ↩

2. This claim could not be verified. ↩

3. This claim could not be verified. ↩

4. This claim could not be verified. ↩

5. This claim could not be verified. ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. According to Mike's original words: "In Buddhism, the universe we live in—all the material universes we can now see—is called a small world. Buddhism holds that three thousand such small worlds make up our universe, becoming a middle world; then three thousand such middle worlds make up a great world. And how many are there in the entire universe? There are three thousand great thousand-worlds. So this is how the 'three thousand great thousand-worlds' comes about."; upon verification it should be: "Buddhism proceeds by multiples of 'one thousand': one thousand small worlds make one small thousand-world, one thousand small thousand-worlds make one middle thousand-world, and one thousand middle thousand-worlds make one great thousand-world; because it accumulates through three successive thousand-fold increases, it is called the 'three thousand great thousand-worlds,' which refers to one great thousand-world, not three thousand great thousand-worlds." (Source: Wikipedia "Great Thousand World," https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E5%8D%83%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C) ↩

8. Source: Wikipedia "Observable universe" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) ↩

9. According to Mike's original words: "In Buddhism, this world, the universe we live in—the universe you live in, because each person has their own universe in their mind—just our universe, is a dewdrop. Suppose we imagine in a space, in the space of our three-dimensional world, there is a dense net woven with silk threads, woven with extremely fine silk threads. On this net there are countless dewdrops; in the morning when it is cool, the net collects many dewdrops, each one crystal clear. Every world is a dewdrop. In this world there is an especially huge net, and this net is not flat but three-dimensional, a dense three-dimensional net crisscrossing vertically and horizontally, interwoven above and below. On this net there are countless dewdrops, and each dewdrop is a universe."; upon verification it should be: "This Buddhist metaphor is the 'Indra's net' from the Avatamsaka Sutra and the Huayan school: the net extends infinitely in all directions, and at each knot of the net is a jewel (a mani pearl) rather than a dewdrop; each jewel reflects all the other jewels, endlessly and inexhaustibly, used to illustrate dependent origination and emptiness and the mutual interpenetration of all phenomena without obstruction." (Source: Wikipedia "Indra's net," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net) ↩

10. This claim could not be verified. ↩

11. According to Mike's original words: "The vibration frequency of strings is extremely high, basically vibrating at superluminal speed"; upon verification it should be: "String theory is a relativistic theory, and the vibration of strings is likewise limited by the speed of light; no point can exceed the speed of light. In the classical solution of an open string, the fastest speed of a free endpoint is only exactly equal to the speed of light." (Source: Barton Zwiebach, A First Course in String Theory, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/first-course-in-string-theory/74E0A2533A3CA80D1EE266D2E27F74F2) ↩

12. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "String theory: Dimensions and vibrations, M-theory, Supersymmetry" (https://www.britannica.com/science/string-theory/Dimensions-and-vibrations) ↩

13. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Quantum mechanics | Definition, Development, & Equations" (https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-mechanics-physics) ↩

14. Source: American Physical Society "1927: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" (https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2008/02/1927-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle) ↩

15. Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "CODATA Value: Planck length" (https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkl=) ↩

16. According to Mike's original words: "The scale of the atomic nucleus is between ten to the negative 15th and negative 16th power"; upon verification it should be: "The diameter of an atomic nucleus is about 1.6×10⁻¹⁵ meters (hydrogen nucleus) to about 15×10⁻¹⁵ meters (heaviest atoms such as uranium), that is, on the order of 10⁻¹⁵ to 10⁻¹⁴ meters, not 10⁻¹⁵ to 10⁻¹⁶ meters." (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "femtometre," https://www.britannica.com/science/femtometre) ↩

17. According to Mike's original words: "Planck time is ten to the negative 34th power seconds"; upon verification it should be: "Planck time is about 5.391247×10⁻⁴⁴ seconds (about ten to the negative 44th power seconds), not ten to the negative 34th power seconds." (Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Fundamental Physical Constants — Complete Listing," https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt) ↩

18. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Space-time" (https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time) ↩