“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I also think that if asked Seth would point out that since the concept of quantum mechanics is based upon the idea that everything we “know”—matter, energy, our sensual information—is made up of quanta, or the interactions of insubstantial fields that in turn, and quite paradoxically, produce very active subatomic packets or particles, then quantum mechanics is at least analogous with his statements that basically the universe is composed of consciousness itself. But I think that the continuum of consciousness, or All That Is, contains not only the phenomena of quantum mechanics, but also Seth’s nonphysical EE (electromagnetic energy) units, and his CU’s (or units of consciousness). In those terms, then, quantum mechanics is a theory that doesn’t penetrate deeply enough into basic reality, even if physicists these days are basing their unified field theories upon quantum thinking. (These theories are themselves quite incomplete, since at this time they incorporate only three of the four basic interactions in nature: electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. So far, gravitation remains outside all attempts at integration.)

But I note with some amusement that science absorbs such heresies by weaving them into and developing them out of current establishment thinking—concepts, say, like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Put very simplistically, this “quantum approach” allows for the theme that each of us inhabits but one of innumerable probable or parallel worlds. Even the theory of evolution is invoked, for those other worlds are said to evolve in parallel with the one we inhabit. Yet there is no answer within quantum mechanics as to how or why one’s personal identity chooses to follow a certain probable pathway, and consciousness per se is not considered. (Some physicists, however, have implied that subatomic particles—photons—communicate with each other as they take their separate but “sympathetic” paths.) Pardon my irony here, but Seth has always dealt with the ramifications of consciousness and maintained also that we do not inhabit just one probable world, but constantly move among them by choice—and by the microsecond, if one chooses.

Some day, for our own amusement—but hardly with the idea of convincing others, let alone influential scientists—I’ll ask Seth to comment upon whatever connections may exist between his ideas and those embedded in quantum mechanics. I’m sure he’s quite entertained by the whole situation—yet also compassionate toward the human strivings involved. He’s never mentioned the concept, nor have we asked him to. I think that Jane has little (if any) interest in whether any connections might exist between the Seth material and the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics. Any discussion of this in our books is strictly my own doing, my own speculation: I think it fun to play creatively with a theory that is, after all, there for anyone to consider, from whatever standpoint. And I maintain that the theory of quantum mechanics does contain strong paranormal aspects, whether or not science admits this.

(I’ll add that both Seth and quantum theory predict the spontaneous creation of particles of matter out of or in “empty” space—events that, it seems to me, go against some of the laws of conservation. One of these states that matter cannot be created from nothing. Seth says this spontaneous creation happens all of the time through the actions of consciousness. In the theoretical quantum world, however, certain conditions are needed: superheavy nuclei amid strong electrical fields, and so forth.)

[...] Especially, though, I sensed relationships between Seth’s idea on the one hand, and both the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics and the principle of complementarity on the other.

The uncertainty principle, or the principle of indeterminacy (advanced by Heisenberg in 1927, and part of the theory of quantum mechanics), sets definite limits to the accuracy possible in measuring both the motion and position of atoms and elementary particles simultaneously; more importantly to my mind, for the purposes of this note, the uncertainty principle maintains that there is an interaction between the observer (with his instruments) and the object or quality being measured.

[...] Albert Einstein, whose own work was rooted in strict causality, found a notion like the free will of an electron untenable, even though much earlier (in 1905) he had laid the foundation for quantum mechanics in his special theory of relativity.

(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. [...]

[...] So you are at such a springboard when your understanding does propel you into a quantum leap of understanding. [...]

(And, very simply, the idea that the “event horizons” of black holes may radiate detectable light could be a step in the unification of some of those forces — gravity and electromagnetism — as they are treated in relativity theory and quantum theory, respectively. [...]

[...] (In those terms, the one exception is the hydrogen atom, which evidently consists of but one proton and one electron cloud, or “smear.”) For the simple purposes of this note, then, I’m leaving out considerations involving quantum mechanics, which concept repudiates the idea of “particles” to begin with. [...]

[...] See Note 2 for that session, in Chapter 4, wherein I wrote that as a physical principle the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics “sets definite limits to the accuracy possible in measuring both the motion and position of atoms and elementary particles simultaneously,” and that “there is an interaction between the observer (with his instruments) and the object or quality being measured.”

Time reversal or particle symmetry, the equivalence of space and time, is a tenet of relativistic physics and quantum theory. [...]

[...] In quantum mechanics this axiom maintains that it’s not possible to simultaneously ascertain the momentum and position of a subatomic wave-particle like an electron, say — electrons being one of the qualities that make up atoms. [...]

[...] Involved, however, are very interesting “nonstandard” methods of regarding time, quantum theory, the infinite and the infinitesimal in numbers, model theory, and other mathematical tools.