“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(One of the letters, from a doctor in Canada, referred us to an article in Scientific American in which a discussion of the many-worlds view of quantum mechanics clearly vindicated a number of Seth’s ideas. We had the magazine on hand but I hadn’t noticed the article, in the December/81 issue. However, I doubt if the author, a professional philosopher, had any idea of backing up Seth; pardon my skepticism.

(This material was very similar to thoughts I’d had while painting this morning. My ideas had been triggered by an article I’d read yesterday in a recent Science Digest article, which I’ll file: At first glance, I’d told Jane later, the article seemed very good. It dealt with the idea that imperfections in the universe gave birth to life and all we know—that if the “big bang” had expanded perfectly uniformly there would be no life in the universe, merely a perfectly uniform cloud of lifeless hydrogen gas. It took me a while to realize that the author had said nothing at all about the idea of life as we know it being latently present all the while in the primordial cloud before it began to expand. Then I thought that in the perfectly expanding, uniform hydrogen cloud, nothing would be needed, in those terms [the author’s]—not even life itself. “There’s something very wrong with that guy’s thinking,” I told Jane. Probably that there is no such thing in nature as perfection, and that although we think we can conceive of such a quality, we really cannot—hence the way is left open for such messy manifestations as “life,” etc.)