“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I am far more interested in personality equations than in mathematical ones. [...]

[...] He spoke to Carl about a game involving mathematics and drama that would make millions for Carl, should he succeed in working it out. [...]

(Seth said the material on individual constructions of the world of matter can be verified mathematically.

[...] This information, given to us in sessions, was published in the appendix of The Seth Material. The paper Jim sent was so professionally oriented that I could hardly understand it, couched as it was in specialized mathematical language. [...]

[...] Mathematics is a theoretical organized structure that of itself imposes your ideas of order and predictability. [...]

The point of such contact can indeed be mathematically shown, and in the future I shall do just that. [...]

[...] Jane, while agreeing, couldn’t elaborate upon this very much, beyond saying that she felt each family could have subdivisions, and/or combine with others, so that mathematically at least there existed the possibility of “a lot” of them. [...]

[...] In that session also, Seth stated the above statement can be verified mathematically. [...]

[...] “This can be proven mathematically, and scientists are already working with the problem, though they do not understand the principles behind it. [...]

He said more about the symbolism of Peter’s illness, spoke about Jim’s past relationships with Ann, and said that Jim had mathematical abilities he was not using. [...]

(She enjoyed the exchange a great deal, she made sketches while speaking on such subjects as the many facets of the electron and its behavior; time and its variations; gravity, its changes with motion, and its attributes in the past, present, and future; the velocities of light; mathematical equations; astronomy, including perceptions by telescope of the future as well as of the past; the structure of the earth’s core; earthquakes and “black” sound/light; language, including glossolalia and her own Sumari; pyramids, coordination points, and so forth. [...]

[...] This can be proven mathematically, and scientists are already working with the problem, though they do not understand the principles behind it.

[...] [If I were very cynical, I’d add here that to Jane and me it often seems that science wants only what science believes.] At the same time, in mathematical and biological detail much too complicated to go into here, the author of many a scientific work in favor of evolution has ended up by undermining, unwittingly, I’m sure, the very themes he so devoutly believes in. [...]

8. Very briefly, for those who are interested: It’s often been shown mathematically that contrary to Darwinistic belief, enormous time spans (in the millions of years, say) will not aid in the chance formation of even the chemical precursors to life — the protein or nucleic acid molecules — but will instead make their creation even less likely. [...]

[...] even at 4.6 billion years, the earth mathematically is not old enough for life to have had the time to evolve (beginning about 3.8 billion years ago) into its enormously complex current forms. [...]

[...] The selves reach a point which is not a theoretical point, but a particular mathematically existent point, whereby these times and selves simply become one, or in our terms, an entity.