tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86001392024-03-07T18:37:29.632-08:00The Yoga of Time Travel and Dr. Quantum's WorldTag along on Fred Alan Wolf's tour throughout the world talking about his books and his work. Wolf will be keeping you posted on all of the details during his tour, where he'll be making or has already made stops in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Boston, London, Montreal, Istanbul, Santiago, and more. Hear what new adventures await him at his next event or how a workshop altered his thinking on a particular matter. He may even share a time-traveling experience or two.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-59786756165089201912012-11-09T12:39:00.001-08:002012-11-09T12:39:20.144-08:00<a href="http://snippetfact.com/c425/facts-about-yoga"><img alt="facts about yoga" src="http://snippetfact.com/awards/a/fredalanwolf_dot_blogspot_dot_com.png"></a>Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-41908605222681384852010-06-22T10:43:00.000-07:002010-06-22T11:18:10.719-07:00Medical Questions and Quantum PhysicsLately I have been receiving a lot of inquiries concerning the field of medicine and its relationship with quantum physics. Of course since quantum physics is the basis for all physical processes including those that happen in the body, it would seem that its findings should somehow be made relevant to discovering cures for diseases or perhaps for enhancing the mind-body interaction.<br /><br /> One of the chief elements of a possible connection between quantum physics and the body would seem to be found in the observer effect of quantum physics wherein by performing acts of observations one actually affects or disrupts the state of the object being observed. Unfortunately to date no one knows how the observer effect actually works. We do know it takes place but it is hard to find a model that uses math to predict how it works and therefore to control it so that we achieve desired goals or outcomes. What is certain is that in quantum physics all actions in the universe are governed by quantum wave functions that I call <em>qwiffs</em> for short. Qwiffs govern the probabilities of events taking place. When actions occur that follow a pattern of intelligent behavior these qwiffs change abruptly from indicating probable or possible actions to a meaningful single actual action. <br /><br /> Whenever atoms are arranged in a highly repetitive pattern, such as those found in crystals or in the long strands of molecular DNA, the qwiffs also take on a similar pattern. This pattern constitutes a continual kind of observation in which the qwiff, in a sense, is observing itself over and over again. Quantum waves and qwiffs can be imagined as constrained by such a pattern, which, in fact, gives the structure its stability.<br /><br /> The qwiff, in my view, turns on and off through the observer effect. When an observations occurs, the qwiff “pops,” and a pointlike atom, or part of an atom, is manifested for an instant. When no observation takes place, the qwiff “hangs around,” like a ghost, in the same locale in which it first popped. This sequence is highly reinforced by the repeating structure.<br /><br /> To try to imagine this concept is difficult because there are many atoms involved. The qwiffs, as I imagine them, are “resonating” with the structure of the molecules, so that each qwiff turns on and off with many oscillations. From the solid molecule’s point of view, this corresponds to its own self-observation.<br /><br />This viewpoint can be contrasted with a single atom’s self-observation: It, too, can be thought of as being in a self-observation pattern, wherein its qwiff turns on and off. But being an isolated atom means that the pattern will display a higher degree of randomness. At the atomic level, this pattern appears as the atom itself, vanishing and reappearing in a sequence of random points, blurring, more or less, into a solid object. <br /> <br /> Thus, each qwiff pattern is highly specific to the element it represents. A qwiff for the hydrogen atom is quite different in detail from the qwiff of a carbon atom.<br /><br /> When a sugar-phosphate molecule repeats itself as an endless chain of snakelike strands, winding around each other much like a spiral staircase, an infinite hall-of-mirrors effect manifests itself, allowing the living, conscious molecule to appear. I am describing, of course, the molecule of genetic life, deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.<br /><br /> The second idea is even stranger and more speculative. There are actually two qwiffs involved in a qwiff pop, the second of which I call the <em>star qwiff </em>or <em>star wave </em>(as I referred to it in my previous book entitled <em>Star Wave</em>), is similar in form to the ordinary qwiff, only orientated backward in space-time. Thus, an ordinary qwiff, <em>W</em>, moving from here-now to there-then, is met by a <em>star qwiff</em>, <em>W*</em>, from the there-then moving toward the here-now. These qwiffs multiply together, yielding the product <em>W*W</em>; that is, <em>W*</em> multiplying <em>W</em>. Now, it is not speculation that one must multiply the ordinary qwiff <em>W</em> by its star qwiff <em>W*</em> in order to calculate the relative probability that qwiff events will occur; that is exactly what quantum physicists do when they determine the likelihood that any event will occur. The speculation surrounds the idea that <em>W*</em> comes from the future, traveling backward through time, much like the wave that, bouncing off the shore, travels back toward the source of the wave. I can’t justify this idea by any physical experiment, at least not yet.<br /><br /> I believe this idea is important because it could explain how the evolution of anything can take place. My idea is similar to those that Sir Fred Hoyle discusses in his book, <em>The Intelligent Universe</em>. Merely left to the odds, it is extremely unlikely that anything as orderly as a human being would arise at all simply from random processes. As I explained in my book <em>The Body Quantum</em>, Chapter 11, there needs to be some form of intelligence involved. But the question is, how does that intelligence act? Of course, I could just postulate that there is a Supreme Intelligence and that that being can act in any way that it sees fit. As Niels Bohr once remarked to Albert Einstein, when he was trying to figure out how God did it, “Stop telling God what to do.”<br /><br /> I certainly don’t want to do that! But I do want to know how God does it. Yet, as a physicist, I am somewhat constrained: I can’t postulate just any idea, because a scientific idea, in order to be considered valid, must fit with what we already know (or, at least, “think” we know). The idea that <em>W*</em> comes from the future may just save the day, however. As Hoyle puts it:<br /><br /> <em>If events could operate not only from past to future, but also from future to past, the seemingly intractable problem of quantum uncertainty could be solved. Instead of living matter becoming more and more disorganized, it could react to quantum signals from the future--the information necessary for the development of life. Instead of the Universe committed to increasing disorder and decay, the opposite could then be true.</em> (Hoyle, <em>The Intelligent Universe </em>p. 213.)<br /><br /> In a highly organized material containing repeating patterns, the W*W content becomes highly repetitive, producing a probability pattern of reinforced strength. Thus, crystals of repeating materials, such as sodium chloride, carbon lattices (such as diamond), and other single crystals of metals and metals in combinations with other substances, possess great strength or other unusual properties.<br /><br />In DNA we have a similar phenomenon of great repetition, with complex patterns of sugar-phosphate backbones interrupted by the much longer, seemingly random steps of base pairs linked :together in complementary codes. These bases, you’ll recall, occur with four types: <em>A, C, G, T</em>.<br /><br /> Here a third idea surfaces: Because of the repetition of the DNA structure, the likelihood of a repeating <em>W*W</em> pattern is highly enhanced, with the <em>W*</em> involved propagating from a near future to the present. The signal from the future is more or less the same as that from the past, and the pattern, consequently, tends toward stability. The more stable the pattern, the less likely that the distant future will disturb it. Again, the idea that there exists a resonance between the qwiff and its structure—involving both the past and the future—is at play here. Signals from the distant future do arrive, however; without them, DNA would never alter its patterns. But the more stable the reinforcement brought on by the repetition of the strand, the smaller the disturbance produced. It is the interplay of the endless crystalline repetition of the DNA strands, twisting in space and dancing in time as vibrations with the almost though not quite random patterns of <em>A, C, G,</em> and <em>T</em> bases, that produces stable animal and plant consciousness. Consciousness, as we commonly experience it, thereby emerges as a consequence of the qwiff vibration patterns associated with DNA vibration patterns repeating and resonating with both the future and the past.<br /><br /> Molecules of DNA within shouting distance of each other also vibrate, sending quantum semaphore messages back and forth, and in this manner a resonance arises between neighboring molecules. This resonance is much like any other resonance phenomenon, such as a building’s vibrations in the wind or the rolling of a ship on the high seas. With energy being fed from one molecule to the other at just the right frequency to induce the other molecule to respond, the two resonate together. It is this resonance of waves in different cells that could result in the healing of the cells.<br /><br /> Illness could result from an opposite effect. When molecules are off-resonance, they fail to communicate with each other; such off-resonance could arise from atomic changes in the molecules or from subtle changes in the probability patterns of the qwiffs, possibly brought on by “negative” thinking. I don’t really know in precise scientific terminology what constitutes such thinking. I speculate, influenced by such thinking, perhaps molecules tend to isolate themselves, forming self-contained units of limited capacity. Such molecular isolation can be understood in terms of our own behavior when we feel depressed or unduly anxious about something, and want to be alone in our misery.<br /><br /> Consequently, illness and negative thinking could create molecular islands of separation within our cells. Healing energy counters this separation tendency by fostering correlations between molecules: One molecule heals another.<br /><br />And possibly in the relationship between a healer and a healee, the healer attempts, through touch and simple bodily presence, to resonate with the healee. <br /><br /> Healing energy is felt, then, as a simultaneous presence in the healer and the healee.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-71685524561235578002009-01-13T07:15:00.001-08:002009-01-13T07:19:35.123-08:00Can Things Get Better? Part IVSociety as a whole behaves like the entire “temporal” hologram and hence generates a universally clear (but average) belief which tends to head the society into a specific (but also averaged out) future, while any individual in the society sees that belief in a kind of fuzzy (yet more specific about certain details but much less about others) way that rarely manifests as any individual wants. The individual belief usually differs from the mass belief in details, but the mass belief has the most power to move the society into the future. (Brain-washing results when no individual has a belief containing any structure other than embedded in the slogan-like mass belief.)<br />Take the United States and its beliefs for example. We each believe in “freedom” in one way or another and hence tend to move into the future where freedom is manifested. Yet freedom can have many different individual meanings; anything from freedom to defraud and commit violence to freedom to love who or what one wishes to love. Take our love affair with technology as another example. We certainly will continue to move into a more technologically advanced society as the decades roll on. While many in the world see little use for this belief, the wave of the mass mind overcomes them leaving in its wake the distraught and disenfranchised who resort to often powerful means to halt the progression including holding up the banner of human values above technology and the employ of terrorism or misinformation.<br />Most likely you don’t need convincing from a physicist as to how to run your own life or what you should believe. But let me persevere here. We are all concerned with good and evil. Most of us feel that with an enlightened way of existing in the world all evils would eventually disappear and all that would emerge would be a utopian world of equality, freedom, pleasure, beauty, light, and so on. Could such a world ever come into being?<br />I’m going to answer in the negative here, perhaps surprisingly so since after all, this article may be seen as a means to make the world a better place to live in through the acceptance of a new tenet. I’m going to suggest that in spite of the way the world may seem, at times, to be hell-bent for disaster, it remarkably is a wonderful and magical world at the same time. I am not attempting to provide a Panglossian view of this old globe. Nor do I believe in a Pollyanna view that everything is just perfect the way it is, but I will say that good and evil must coexist in order for a world of human values to exist at all—in order that even consciousness has the ability to manifest as matter in the first place. (And in order that mind appear in its material guise as memory.)<br />In fact let me conclude by saying that if science has taught me anything, it has certainly shown me how resilient and balanced the universe is. Fluctuations continually arise temporarily upsetting the balance, and just as quickly as they arise, forces come into existence restoring that balance. This axiom is true, seeming miraculously so, in all of the factions comprising biological and physical science. For examples, I’ll mention the balancing forces of self-induction in electrical circuits that keep electromagnetic fields from growing indefinitely and thereby unstable, the resistance of life to environmental changes (thus maintaining the status quo with the arising of mutant strains from time to time), and finally the mindful resistance we all offer when faced with new ideas including these: Consciousness is the ground of all being and things will get better for most of us, but not all.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-78935498818810661482009-01-07T14:49:00.000-08:002009-01-07T14:50:16.699-08:00Can Things Get Better? Part IIIPerhaps we can trace our “scientific” faith to our early ancestors who believed in magic—they attempted to manipulate nature by any means they thought would work. When some manipulation did finally work, perhaps the need to simplify and explain how it works overcame the need to accept the mystical implications of how it works in the hope that greater control of nature would result. Through such a “needy” theory, the belief in a theoretical model—complexity emerges from simplicity—arose and strengthened in scientific mindsets. Hence, why believe in the spiritual realm or even why accept its opposite tenet, simplicity emerges from complexity (hence, matter arises from mind)?<br />A difficult question, but one that needs looking into. First, though, consider just how does any belief arise? I think that a belief reflects a vision of hope (or despair) and desire for change (or constancy)—possibly (and this is my own spin on this), a message from a future waiting to be realized. In quantum physics we deal with possible futures all of the time. These possibilities appear as abstract mathematical forms including vectors, waves, and complex numbers, as seen from a perspective of the present moment. Today, even more than 100 years since the inception of quantum physics and its acceptance in scientific reasoning (indeed forming the base of that reasoning), even though its theoretical structures remain intact, debate still rages over what it means. Consensus indicates that whatever quantum physics means modern science cannot be useful or predictive without these abstract (neo-Platonic) possibility-forms providing the ground of all being of modern science.<br />Although many interpretations of quantum physics continue to circulate, several posit the notion that both future and past events play a role in the construction of everyday reality (I’ll mention only physicist John Cramer’s “Transactional Interpretation” and Yakir Aharonov and Lev Vaidman’s “Time Symmetric Quantum Formulism”). In my view (and possibly in theirs) all possible futures are in continual contact with each and every present moment of conscious (and unconscious) awareness, kind of like the way a piece of a hologram (made from the waves reflecting off all points on an object) contains a whole picture of that object (see my book, Matter into Feeling).Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-18171657898798509312009-01-06T08:17:00.000-08:002009-01-06T08:21:28.297-08:00Can Things Get Better? Part IIScientific views posit that somehow more complex lifeforms evolved from simpler lifeforms—those that existed before. This conviction, based as it is on a two prevailing belief structures—evolution in biology and reductionism in physical science, state that complexity emerges from simplicity—order arises from disorder.<br />One might argue that nothing is simple about disorder or complex about order. However, certainly complex organization, even though it may appear chaotic, exhibits great order. Take a string of ones and zeros making up a computer’s code, for example. A cursory glance at it shows it to be disorderly but we know that not to be the case. (Otherwise how could a computer program work?) It thus seems that complexity and order are joined at the waist, so to speak; hence, conversely, simplicity and chaos must equally be joined. One more remark: As a teacher I am often praised by students because I seem to make the complex simple through word and metaphor. In actual fact, I may be doing the opposite. I simply raise out of the chaotic (and usually simply configured and often incorrect) mire of unclear notions—in which most nonscientists embed scientific concepts—metaphorical descriptions that these nonscientists do hold or believe in.<br />Thus it appears as a scientific axiom (an unquestionable belief) that order and complex structures, including movements and cycles, arise out of simpler and more chaotic structures and movement. This belief holds for the big bang cosmology model as much as it does for the biological evolution-of-the-species model. This is indeed strange considering that its polar opposite—chaos arising from the destructive forces of entropy—appears to be fundamental to our everyday life experience. In other words, things do seem to get naturally worse—more chaotic and disorganized (and hence simpler)—unless individuals do something about them by imparting energy to the systems they wish to improve or preserve (and thereby make more complex).<br />Well, why do we believe in this “scientific” myth of the evolution of complexity from simplicity and its co-logical concomitants, mind from matter and life from the nonliving? Or is it just a prejudice that comes to Western mindsets inundated with Newtonian and Darwinian philosophy?Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-22446186537752747572009-01-05T08:35:00.000-08:002009-01-05T08:38:58.754-08:00Can Things Get Better? Part I.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNMGN04oW6zXBdX9mSKbCZwD79tJxebLzOgHZCgfOBdtkVF2XJ1D8_ic8wbSITvV7A633DfTFhXX0ok3RK0c-k9ylR3a20IlV9H0GJX-gLfxA5GmzOEdrohPLS8-7HHtQFuJH_/s1600-h/FAW2000-01%2336.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287850015750664642" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 221px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNMGN04oW6zXBdX9mSKbCZwD79tJxebLzOgHZCgfOBdtkVF2XJ1D8_ic8wbSITvV7A633DfTFhXX0ok3RK0c-k9ylR3a20IlV9H0GJX-gLfxA5GmzOEdrohPLS8-7HHtQFuJH_/s320/FAW2000-01%2336.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Our world always seems to be on the brink of one form of trouble or another. Yet, often surprisingly so, we seem to recover only to face a new challenge. Could it be that this apparent dance macabre arises from our global failure to re-envision the world as a spiritual manifestation? Can our predicament be due to our Western-scientific-based belief that the world and all its phenomena, including life and mind, fundamentally emerge out of matter? Could it be that with a different worldview things might get better? In this short essay, I will examine this belief and indicate what we might expect if we were to accept the counter-idea that matter, mind, and life all arose from a far more complex entity called spirit or consciousness.<br />In brief, something called consciousness provides the fundamental ground of being out of which all physical and mental phenomena emerge. Although many spiritually-inclined people may take this view, it doesn’t seem to fit with common beliefs coming from scientific reasoning. But what about most of the world’s non-science-based beliefs (if even anything like a world belief system can be imagined)? Do you the reader actually believe that mind or consciousness came first? Or perhaps better put, could such a view have any scientific, spiritual, or even logical foundation? And even if it did, would this change your view or your way of life (or the world’s)?Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-86412707931996686062009-01-03T08:34:00.000-08:002009-01-03T08:35:38.203-08:00<div align="left"><strong> Difficult Questions in Troubling Times.</strong><br /><br /> Many of you in sending me your questions by email seem to keep coming back to the same questions about God, the Mind of God, the Unified Field, and the quantum field. Some of you would hope that I could give a consistent answer or better metaphor to describe such terms as these. I wish I could. I also wish that I could be consistent in my answers to you, however I am not able to do so simply because my views of what these metaphors or answers to these questions may be keeps changing as I learn more and more and think more and more about the meanings of my answers. <br /> I am not alone in the predicament. Even the Buddha and Robert Oppenheimer the physicist-leader of the Manhattan atom bomb project faced this same problem.<br /> One day a wanderer came into the village where the Buddha taught. His name was Vacchagotta. He asked the Enlightened One whether or not there was a soul (Atman). The following was their somewhat brief and one-sided conversation:<br /> VACCHAGOTTA: Venerable Gotama, is there a Soul?<br /> BUDDHA: (Silence.)<br /> VACCHAGOTTA: Then Venerable One, is there no Soul?<br /> BUDDHA: (Silence.)<br /> VACCHAGOTTA: (Gets up and goes away.)<br /> Later Ananda, a disciple of the Buddha, appeared and asked the Enlightened One to comment on his previous silence. The Buddha said,<br />Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer, “Is there a Soul?”, if I had answered: “There is a soul”, then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold to the eternalist theory. And when asked by the wanderer: “Is there no soul?” If I had answered: “There is no soul”, then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold to the annihilationist theory.<br /> Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: “Is there a soul?”, if I had answered: “There is”, would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas [ways of inquiry, paths to enlightenment] are without soul? And when asked by the Wanderer, “Is there no soul?”, if I had answered, “There is no soul”, then that would have been a greater confusion to the already confused Vacchagotta [who earlier had inquired into what happens after death and was confused by the Buddha’s answer]. For he would have thought: “Formerly indeed I had a soul, but now I haven’t got one.”<br /> We can compare this legend with one well known from quantum physics. One day a student wandered into the chambers of Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who in the 1940s headed the scientific team that constructed the atomic bomb. As the story goes the student asked Oppenheimer about the existence and movement of the tiny subatomic electron within the confines of the atom, to which Oppenheimer answered,<br />If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say “no.” If we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say “no.” If we ask whether it is in motion, we must say “no.” If we ask whether it is standing still, we must say “no.”<br /> Oppenheimer’s quote and the Buddha’s response to Ananda regarding the soul point to the same thing. For in both Buddhist logic and quantum physics, it is necessary not to hold any fixed opinion but to see things as they are without mental projections—especially when such answers require you to have such mental projections in order to answer them. <br /> I am sure that if I had chosen to simply remain silence to your many questions about God, the Mind of God, and the unified field most of you would have been upset at my silence just as Vacchagotta was. Since I chose to answer these questions as Robert Oppenheimer did, I would be faced with telling you different and seemingly contradictory answers from time to time as I apparently did thus as the Buddha predicted leading to confusion that the Buddha avoided by keeping silent, but I not being as wise as the Venerable One fell into the trap. <br /> So now once and for all I ask your forgiveness if I have led you astray or caused you confusion. Frankly I felt frustrated when I saw that you kept asking me the same questions over and over again. There simply is no consistent answer to such questions regarding God as What is . . .? Enjoy life. It is a mystery.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> </div>Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-31673182979371983802008-12-31T14:56:00.000-08:002009-01-01T10:18:52.579-08:00Happy New Year<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2It6nFYGncJ88CZlyRQZ7XzwpK59bc89l-EDY1agNnaXZgxniUA9v5u829gIiVmiokoOS6wzeNYcNvIA4ynR5mCXOvLJI0Jh-cZOy0tmPUbPNCGm4NkYdxcs12nfV9d9RJjqR/s1600-h/Fred+speaking3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5286097586441096242" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 254px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2It6nFYGncJ88CZlyRQZ7XzwpK59bc89l-EDY1agNnaXZgxniUA9v5u829gIiVmiokoOS6wzeNYcNvIA4ynR5mCXOvLJI0Jh-cZOy0tmPUbPNCGm4NkYdxcs12nfV9d9RJjqR/s320/Fred+speaking3.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Whew! It has been a weird year. The down swing in hope and the expose of crooks with their hands in our pockets who sold us the quick easy snake oil we are prone to be suckers for (make money from real estate and the stock market) has not outstripped the mass illusion of fear that we have been living through since 9-11 and going back in time to the warning of Eisenhower the rise of the military industrial complex (<em>MIC</em>). The BBC series <em>The Power of Nightmares</em> rang true to me. In order to keep the USA going we needed a dream--an illusion--to keep us out of trouble. Hitler knew it, and the leaders of the <em>MIC</em> knew it in spades--sell the snake oil we all gobble up--the snake oil of fear.</div><br /><div>So we bought it--every last drop of it and we haven't stop imbibing since DDE left the scene more than 50 or so years ago. Fear is the great snake oil that we all look for to justify our needs to be greedy and to look out for <em>numero uno</em>.</div><br /><div>In spite of this, I hope we have learned one important lesson. The guys at the top (they usally are those with testosterone-stoned brains) are really not any smarter than you when it comes to thinking about the world. We need to practice thinking for ourselves and not looking for the nearest snake-oil remedy to haul us out of the ditches of our own mass illusion that those people "out there" are out there to gitchya.</div><br /><div>Happy New Year--let's make this one count for all of us.</div><br /><div></div>Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-38669211600414875662007-09-28T06:03:00.000-07:002007-09-28T06:54:37.278-07:00The LOA and the real secretThere is a big difference between just thinking 1) "I want a big car" 2) "I am not good enough" or 3) "I am good" or 4) "I am ugly" or 5) "I am happy" and taking an appropriate action to do something about them. The LOA (Law of Attraction) seems to imply that merely thinking such thoughts will attract the object of those thoughts to you. I don't think the universe works this way. When you think those thoughts you tend to act according to them and those actions will attract you to those objects and modify your behavior accordingly. There is no magic field "out there" or magic genii "out there" that will answer those thoughts by granting your wishes as the film seems to imply. That magic field or genii is yourself.<br /><p> <p> Hence, for one example, suppose you fear being robbed. Your fear can provoke any number of actions on your part. <p> For example,<br /><p> A) You don't go into neighborhoods that are poor wearing brightly colored gold jewelry.<br /><p> B) You carelessly go wherever you wish to go and when you are in a crowd you tug at your gold watch or your wallet or jewelry just to make sure it's there because you are fearful. These actions tip off possible pickpockets. The probability of attracting thieves to you increases or decreases according to your behavior. The robbers watch you and many others and are attracted to "tuggers" regardless of how the tuggers are thinking. In fact a tugger might be thinking "I want to be secure so I'll check my watch or bracelet or wallet."<br /><p> C) You go into a crowded arena and simply act alertly to suspicious movements around you.<br /><p> Here is another example. Say you say to yourself "I will win the lottery today". In the LOA this will attract the winnings to you over others who don't wish this, right?<br /><p> So you open your emails one day and find that indeed you receive a notice that your email address has just won a zillion bucks. You contact the mailer accordingly and find then to get your money you need to send them some money to cover "costs" or give your bank account information or SSN or something else. But you believe in the LOA, right? So you do this, and soon enough you find yourself ripped off by a scam. Oh, such scams are continually ongoing looking for believers in the LOA. Suppose you are such a believer. Now comes the LOA rationalization. "I must have really desired to be ripped off other wise this wouldn't have happened to me. I attracted the scam."<br /><p> One of the presenters in the "secret" movie after appearing on the Larry King show was asked, "If you believe in the LOA why did you recently have a heart attack?" His answer? "I wanted to have this heart attack in order to slow down, I was working too hard." If you believe this, then you will always find a rationalization for whatever random events occur in your life. That is certainly not science, but is humans trying to deal with our<br />indeterminant universe with hindsight. If something good happens, you will tell yourself "I was using the LOA to attract good." If something bad happens, you will say "I was using the LOA to attract something bad." Both are simple and human rationalizations and in fact not based on any scientific fact or experiment and certainly not on quantum physics.<br /><p> <p> In the first example it is your behavior that that produces the possible theft or non-theft rather than the thought. Indeed the thought "I don't wish to be robbed" in case A or C keeps you safer than in case B. According to the LOA your fear will get you robbed because you have put out that field that attracts robbers to you. The same would hold to the thought "I don't want to get cancer." Or the thought " don't want to be raped." The LOA seems to imply that in these cases you attract cancer or rapists to yourself.<br /><p> <p> In the second example you get you into trouble by believing in the LOA, which when it fails, you rationalize through hindsight. In other words, you make the LOA work by simply denying it fails through hindsight rationalization. You say "I failed to get my goal because I was unconsciously wishing to fail." If you had succeeded you would have said "I got my goal because I was using the LOA." This is not scientific thinking and is not quantum physics.<br /><p> <p> In brief, people are attracted or repulsed by your behavior not your thoughts. Things are not. Stuff happens-- good and bad-- to all of us.<br /><p> <p> We all are born and we die. I believe that aside from the LOA each of us has a purpose on the planet and that the event of your birth is not an accident and that your death is not the end of the road. Finding your purpose in life may take years or decades, but you will eventually find it and act according to that purpose or frustrate yourself by doing what you really don't wish to do. The really big secret is not the LOA, it is the action that people who realize their purpose take in their lives. In every case where I have met successful people, I tend to find the happiest people are those who do what they enjoy doing. The richest people are those who do what benefits others. To be rich and happy do what you enjoy doing for the benefit of others and you can't fail to be rich and happy. It is absolutely guaranteed, provided you take right action.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-21937144987667696122007-02-27T13:16:00.000-08:002007-04-05T09:20:40.424-07:00Writing a Self-Help BookFor those of you who wish to market a new self help book on "the new Secret" of the "law of attraction" I hope you read these thoughts before you go ahead. There are many books out there, even more than I can imagine, written by people who have seen "the secret" or "the bleep" and think they have a unique insight to teach others techniques for personal growth.<br />I give a lot of seminars, and I personally don't teach people techniques for realizing their potentials and other such ideas as I have found that they simply don't work and are in their own way spiritual "diet books" which may work for a while but in the end fail. Spiritual techniques advocated by people who have never made a serious study of spiritual teaching or base their books on quantum physics principles without studying the subject at length and who really don't know enough to teach others techniques based upon these deeper "secrets" make me really wonder why such people write such books other than the obvious one to make some money. Does your book do other than that? Or are you just another person trying their own hand at writing another imitation "think and grow rich diet book"?<br />It appears to me that any author who does not understand the quantum field and is only quoting what has been written by others who do understand it and have written for others from the point of view of knowledge, will create a lot of noise and little light. Should your book appear to be written from such a point of view, I would rethink it. Come from your own experience. For example are you a financially successful business person? A book which explains how you made it would be good, but a book advocating spiritual quantum physics techniques based on the quantum field by someone who has no such background in quantum field theory rings a little false to me.<br />A quantum field consciousness-spirituality and growth book may sound wonderful but it is possibly misleading if you think that this field can give you anything you desire.. First of all the quantum field is not really an energy field and secondly consciousness can not exert a force. Nor is consciousness energy. Consciousness and energy are not the same things at all. Thirdly if everyone could just tune into this hypothetical field and just by doing so create anything they wanted to create, the world would be in a worst mess than it is right now.<br />For example suppose my neighbor wanted to tune in and create a fence between our two houses higher than my window or have a million dollars appear in his bank account without taking appropriate actions to do so. Innocent enough? But if his wish did create such a fence and the next instant a fence were to appear between our houses or workmen came out and erected one I would lose my view of the mountains. Then I would have to knock down his fence or make a fence low enough to see the mountains and my neighbor would be pissed off at me and on and on our little wish-duel would go. If he just wished for a million bucks to magically appear in his account without appropriate actions, maybe it would appear, but if it did in my account, I would suspect the bank had made a serious error and that someone else was out a million bucks. If I didn't care and only wanted my selfish desires satisfied, the world again would be worse off. Do you get my point here?<br />The real quantum field has such checks and balances and in fact when it creates from nothing a particle of matter it also creates a particle of antimatter and they cancel each other out in a very short instance. Hence just wishing for things from this field does not make it so.<br />Our universe works and things are always balancing each other to make it work--such are the laws of nature.<br />Hence in a world where "wishes were horses" would simply not work. Your creation could very well by <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">an other's</span> annihilation. Let me put this another way.<br />Reading a self-help book written by someone who really doesn't understand the nature of reality is like listening to someone play a violin who watched a great master play a violin in a silent movie and decided to play for real by just imitating what she or he saw. Undoubtedly it would sound like something near to what the master was playing, but it would give many false notes. Is your book ringing out false notes? Such books appear to me to be like that. Oh by the way, I get a lot of requests to blurb such books, nearly one a day so the field may be getting glutted.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-23583355243271200492007-01-27T10:14:00.000-08:002007-01-27T16:34:45.431-08:00Update to those who blog. 01/27/07Hi fellow bloggers. As you know I don't blog very well these days, but I do wish to remind you to visit my webpage <a href="http://www.fredalanwolf.com/"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">http://www.fredalanwolf.com/</span></a> where you'll find my latest updates so to speak. Here are some Q&A I found interesting for you to peruse about my appearance in the movie "The Secret."<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: I want to tell you that you are by far the most thrilling, enigmatic and seemingly informed talking heads that spoke in both Bleep and The Secret - hence my decision to come to you for a sense of 'the truth'. I have a lot of life ahead of me and I want to make the most of it - that is why I so badly want to understand the concept of deliberate creation - I want to use it damn it! </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: Thanks for the compliment. As far as your life ahead is concerned, don't damn it. Your words are very important. For more read Mind into Matter and Matter into Feeling</span>.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Do you believe that there is an abundance of everything for everyone in this world? Answer: Yes. Most of our problems have to do with greed, fairness, and keeping agreements. Question: You appeared in the movie The Secret. The research that I have done indicates that you do not believe in the law of attraction (LOA) - is this true? </span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: Not quite. Let me give you my answer regarding the movie The Secret and the LOA talked about in that movie. Do like things really attract each other? Actually in quantum physics we find that like doesn't attract like, and if you notice I never made that point in the film. Like charges repel each other <span style="color:#3333ff;">(</span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>+</strong></span> repels <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">+</span></strong> and <strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">-</span></strong> repels <strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">-</span></strong>) and unlike charges attract (<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>+</strong> </span>attracts <strong><span style="color:#009900;">-</span></strong>). The better metaphor might be resonance, that two things that vibrate together have more energy as compared to two things that vibrate out of phase with each other in which case they have no energy. When you are attracted to another person it is likely that you and the other are in some sense vibrating in phase with each other and each of you is energized more than just adding up your separate energies--it's more like <span style="font-size:130%;">4</span> times the energy of each individual. With 3 persons it goes as <span style="font-size:180%;">9</span> times and so on. Hence large crowds rock at a concert together because those in attendance are each enormously energized by the presence of the others in like mind sets. Hence the rock concert high, or the Sunday at church feeling and so on. The same thing holds for the Marine Corp or for a nation going to war or for any fascist or racist movement. Hence if you use the metaphor without thinking you may find that being a saint (<span style="color:#ff0000;">+</span>) you will attract a lot of sinners (<span style="color:#009900;">-</span>'s).<br />I think the rolling stones said it well:<br /></span><span style="color:#009900;">But what's confusing you<br />Is just the nature of my game.<br />Just as every cop is a criminal<br />And all the sinners saints<br />As heads is tails<br />Just call me Lucifer<br />'cause I'm in need of some restraint.<br />So if you meet me<br />Have some courtesy<br />Have some sympathy, and some taste.</span><br /></span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Regarding the <em>Law of Attraction</em> (LOA) mentioned in the movie The Secret - if you lift yourself to a frequency that feels happy (through happy thoughts) - does this happy frequency then attract the things that make you happy especially if you envision them while in that frequency?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: You will attract others who are on your wavelength and repel others who are not. So be careful what you put out to the world. If you are playing a false card, you will attract those people who think and feel as you do. Walk your talk. Be honest. Tell the truth as best as you know it.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: HIGHER BEING - Do you believe that we have a higher being that lives in a state of nirvana (nirvana being our natural state) who decided to come forth into this time-space reality as a means to experience contrast in an effort to understand our divine nature?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: You are the being. Now answer the question for yourself.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Do you believe that we are entitled to and thus bound to receive everything we want just by believing in it and being on the same frequency of it?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">Answer: We are entitled to nothing by others. We are here to learn and share and love each other. Since you created your world, you choose to be entitled to whatever you choose to do.<br /><br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Do you believe that our emotions are a communication mechanism designed to let our higher self let our physical self know whether or not we are in the process of creating something good or bad for ourselves?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: You have one self only. Higher and lower selves are illusions like thinking you have a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. In you are many personalities--miniature egos--designed by you to speak to you as if they were separate from you.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Do you believe that action was designed as a means to enjoy our physical creations as opposed to actually create and that thought is what delivers what we get (not action)?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: No. No action. No creation. No enjoyment.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Do you agree with the overall message of The Secret - that thought (or feeling) will bring you what you want as long as you vibrate in sync with the thing that you desire and thus attract it into your reality?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: Not quite. Suppose you want a TV set. I wouldn't choose to sync with it any more than I would choose to sync with any other material object. I would sync with the processes I need to use to get that object--my Feelings, Intuitions, Sensations, and Thoughts (FIST). To get the TV set, utilize your FIST and take appropriate action. You can steal it, buy it, rent it, or have a friend give you it as a gift. Most people think that happiness comes from getting what you desire. Think about anything you got after desiring it. In a few days that <strong>Oh Wow</strong> feeling turned into <strong>Ho Hum</strong> didn't it? Watch kids at Xmas time and you'll see what I mean. They open their gift box, give a squeal of joy, and in minutes leave it in the middle of the room for mom to put away. Happiness actually comes from moving towards your goal. Getting it is the booby prize. </span><br /><p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: This question comes from Columbia. It is roughly translated into English. Essentially it asks: Is the quantum physics in the movie <em>What the Bleep</em>, really correct?<br />Several sources including scientists are very skeptical about the ideas described in the movie and don't believe that quantum physics has anything to do with human behavior or consciousness. And another thing, are you to be taken as a serious scientist in the movie?</span> </p><p><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: I assure you that I am a very serious researcher in the field of quantum physics although I do have a sense of humor.<br />Now as to the use of quantum physics outside of its usual domain of objective science: If we look at the field of psychology 120 years ago, you will find that many models of human behavior were based on the then current understanding of the physical world. Freud in particular used mechanics as a means to explain motivation and desire. In fact a lot of human behavior was based on the mechanical view so that even today we emphasize the mechanical cause and effect way of thinking about the human body. This has met with a great deal of success, but with the advent of Chinese medical systems and Indian metaphysics something new has been added. This new addition cannot be explained by Newtonian mechanics. It involves the subjective world--a world we each must live in whether or not we like it. This world involves what we call today in quantum physics the observer. According to quantum physics, even though we know that the observer plays a major role in putting together what we observe as reality, we cannot find the observer inside of the body. Hence we find through quantum physics a bridge connecting the subjective universe with the objective universe.<br />Those of us in the Bleep movie see this connection as something very important and worth talking about and doing research on. Many scientists are satisfied with merely doing research on the objective world even though they know full well that a complementarity principle exists in which the observer can change what is observed. </span></p><span style="color:#000099;"><p><br /></span></p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: I have a question, perhaps you know this one. It's not directly about quantum physics but more about the <em>What the Bleep</em> movie, where you appeared.<br />I've read on several sources on the internet that people were edited and that the whole quantum physics + conciousness, is the wrong approach to the whole science. For example they (WTB makers) edited that teacher from the Columbia University (David Albert) in such a manner that it looked like he supports this "new age" theory. While in another interview somewhere he said that he does not and that he was edited in a wrong manner. Also I read somewhere that the whole WTB is a promotional video for Ramtha. Could you perhaps give some information on this all? Were you edited wrongly in that film and does it misrepresent your opinion/scientific view on the matter? </span><p><span style="color:#ff0000;"><br /></span><span style="color:#000099;">Answer: Since I have had many inquiries such as yours I have the following answers concerning physicist David Albert, Ramtha and the accuracy of the statements in the film.<br />Physicist David Albert got a good chance to air his views in the 2nd release version of Bleep called <em>Down the Rabbit Hole</em> which included nearly all of what he had to say that was "outtaked" from the bleep. <em>Rabbit Hole</em> is also available as a DVD and it has a lot more of the interview material including new interviewees. David was a little peeved not because his words were twisted, but because the context for his remarks had been removed in the interest of good film making. David can be a little dry to listen to--especially since he is a stickler to details being as correct as he can make them--and after all this was a movie not a lecture on quantum physics. So a lot of what people said was edited out to make the movie. All movies are edited for good reasons. David and I and the other physicists did appear last year at a number of bleep seminars held around the country. If he were really that upset, I am sure he wouldn't have accepted these speaking engagements.<br />You were misinformed as to Ramtha's participation. The funding for the film all came from one source, Will Arntz, a successful computer software businessman who made a lot of money running his businesses and decided to put around $5M into a film production. Ramtha's money was not involved. Will was a student of Ramtha as well as the director Mark Vicente and the other producer/director Betsy Chasse. While they fully admit to being students of Ramtha, and I admit that the film did have Ramtha's views well-stated by her, the other viewpoints were not Ramtha's views at all. But Ramtha does like quantum physics. Oh, I am not and never have been a student of Ramtha.<br />The statements made (at least by me) in the film were based on my understanding of experiments done in quantum physics which show such effects as the observer affecting reality by the choices made by the observer. That much is true and I doubt that any physicist would disagree. The speculative venturing we all did were not science but were based on what we thought were consistent with our understanding of scientific principles. I speak for myself here and speculate about what the others had to say. I don't agree with all of the speakers in the film BTW. I would suggest you read my book <span style="color:#33cc00;"><em>Taking the Quantum Leap</em></span> if you haven't already. In it you will learn about why quantum physics is difficult and why physicists can get upset by it. It won the National Book Award and was reviewed by many including the late Carl Sagan (who was quite skeptical) who found it "charming." </span></p>Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1160933142167101172006-10-15T10:23:00.000-07:002006-10-15T10:25:42.183-07:00Long time no blog!Hi all who go to this blog site for updates on FAW. I have neglected this website for so long now, that I wonder if anyone out there is still coming here for messages? Best is to email me at <a href="mailto:fred@fredalanwolf.com">fred@fredalanwolf.com</a> and I'll answer your questions.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1112305509995534032005-03-31T13:37:00.000-08:002006-10-15T10:28:19.266-07:00Hi everybody and thanks for following along on Dr. Quantum’s adventure in this land of dreams and nightmares. I have been getting loads of questions from you all—usually you send to me at my email address <a href="mailto:questions@fredalanwolf.com">questions@fredalanwolf.com</a>. I thought I would share a few with you in this blog.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: Can a machine or measuring device collapse the quantum wave function and turn a possibility into a real event?</span><br /><br />Answer: A measuring device does not collapse the wave function according to quantum physics. That assumption although popular and practical turns out to be incorrect as careful experiment indicates. There have been a number of schemes attempting to add an ad hoc assumption to quantum physics to take care of the “measurement problem” but none are consistent. Some take it that since a device is “classical” and noisy, the device couples in the following way: Take a coin that is flipped so that it lands somewhere. Make it a simple atomic coin like the spin of an electron. The coin can land <strong>H</strong> or <strong>T </strong>and the device <strong>D</strong> can therefore point to <strong>Dh</strong> or <strong>Dt</strong>. If the device is a good device then according to quantum physics we get the following scenario: <strong>Dt</strong>*<strong>T</strong>+<strong>Dh</strong>*<strong>H</strong>, as the final quantum wave function. Since <strong>Dt</strong> and <strong>Dh</strong> are very complex quantum wave functions the probability that there is any overlap between them is practically nil. Now an observer comes on the scene. The observer <strong>S</strong> can see the instrument and can see <strong>St</strong> or <strong>Sh</strong>. Hence the observer thinks the coin has landed one way or the other but the actual situation is both <strong>St*Dt*T+Sh*Dh*H</strong>. These two <em>worlds</em> are very complex and any overlap between them is practically nil. If we assume there is no overlap this becomes what is called the “decoherent phase approximation.” It is then envisioned that the system has “become” classical and the quantum coin is now behaving as if it has a real side showing and the device has a observed that side and the observer has observed that device. But take care it is only an assumption that appears practical but quantum physics does not say that happens.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Question: What if the observer is actually conscious of all the possibilities of the coin flip (including it landing on its side like in the twilight zone, and the possibility of it falling out of space/time, and the possibility that it bursts into flame etc.). The experience that I am ‘feeling’ (heads), however, is just one of these possibilities (as quantum theory suggests). But why does my reality have to be a choice, what if ‘I’ am actually not making any choices at all and realizing all of these realities at different times. There is no ‘consciousness’ because there is no choice, I am not actually discriminating anything, I am a cog in a much larger overall discrimination.<br />My question of coarse regards consciousness. I am a fan of Daniel Dennett and heterophenomenology which posits that consciousness doesn’t exist as a sincere entity. In relation to quantum physics, it seems that we are forced to believe in an observer, because without one, we have no world. However, why are we dedicated to positing an “observer.” Why couldn’t we suggest that in this reality, or this one of many realities, that the principles of light, and how light interacts with atoms results in this process. The observer, as it were, is not there. Rather, what is there is an organism that has been designed to project light towards atoms over time. The observer is our misconception that light directed outwards denotes a being, when it actually just denotes a principle of mechanics.<br />Moreover, if everything that can happen does happen, than isn’t therefore true that consciousness is unreal because it could be?<br /></span><br />Answer: Thanks for your interesting question and your views on Dennett’s work. I also admire his work, although I believe it’s not taking into account quantum physics principles but only those of classical deterministic physics and Darwinism.<br />To really understand the problem of consciousness you will need to grasp that physics does not explain the action of an observer. Modeling what an observer does has been in the works for a long time. I am working on several ideas myself based on some new ideas called “weak measurements” which might explain how different observers often do not see the same things.<br />Now quantum physics predicts that according to von Neumann’s model of quantum physical observation an observer interacts with an observed in such a manner that the observer’s state and the observed state become correlated. Let me use a flipped coin as an example. That means if the observer “sees” heads the coin will be showing heads <strong>AND</strong> if the observer sees tails the coin will show tails. However quantum physics tells us that <strong>BOTH</strong> of these possibilities must exist simultaneously. In other words, the observer has split into two worlds a heads world and a tails world.<br />Yet the observer is conscious of only one world either heads or tails. That is the mystery. No physics explains that. Hence consciousness cannot be explained by current physics. Hence since I believe we all feel we are conscious beings, but what makes that happen? For more on this I suggest you read any of my latest books or listen to my audio CDs. Here is a list to look at: <em>The Dreaming Universe</em> , <em>The Spiritual Universe</em> . <em>Mind into Matter,</em> <em>Matter into Feeling</em>, <em>The Yoga of Time Travel</em>, and <em>Dr. Quantum Presents: A User’s Guide to Your Universe</em>.Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1109605907544184562005-02-28T07:35:00.000-08:002005-02-28T07:51:47.546-08:00I get questions!<p> People ask me since my appearance in the film “What the Bleep” about the almost magical world of quantum physics. When I lecture and talk to people “what kind of feedback and responses do I now get?” I’ve never been in this kind of situation before. People are cheering, standing, applauding, you know, it’s really hot for me. All I can say is I’m having a lot of fun. People seem to be responding to the phenomenon, to the information coming through so they go out in a livelier state than they were when they first come in to the lecture. So that’s basically what I seem to be getting. This quantum physics stuff, or the insights that I’ve gained about the universe and the spiritual nature of the universe and how quantum physics works seems to have a beneficial effect on people.<br /> This response has given me some insights into our own nature. Ever since humans began to wonder and gaze at the heavens, they have taken it as matter of fact that if it is above me, it must be beyond me and therefore godlike. So we tend to see images in the stars and think of heaven as being up there. Hence our forebears took it upon themselves to build great monuments and statues depicting the gods and usually they built these monuments much larger than life size to depict the godlike structure they figures impose on human kind. Motion pictures have taken over statue building but the need to worship gods remains intact in the human spirit. Hence our gaze now turns to movie stars rather than constellations. Thus put my mug on a screen 30 feet by 30 feet or even larger and I become a godlike figure to the unconscious mind witnessing the image.<br /> Or maybe I am just getting older and people think I know more than they do. Oh well . . .<br /> </p>Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1107451801183637532005-02-03T09:27:00.000-08:002005-02-03T09:30:01.183-08:00I'm baaack!!!! Hi fellow bloggers! I’m back!!! Got home from my trip to the Pacific Northwest and found it amazing—not only for the folks I met, but for the rather huge crowds I faced wherever I spoke. The crowd in Boise, Idaho was beyond any expectation I could have. The Boise Statesman feature Dr. Quantum on the front page of the Entertainment section of the Sunday Newspaper and my interviewer with the reporter there was amazing.
<br /> I’m now off to the Santa Monica Bleep conference. (Check out my web page at <a href="http://www.fredalanwolf.com/">http://www.fredalanwolf.com</a>).
<br /> A few of you asked about eating habits. I eat fairly lightly and usually lots of grains and fruits. I like some veggies and once in awhile I eat meat. I try to eat fish more than meat if I can help it. I don’t have much time when I speak to visit with people, but who knows I am fairly open and folks do approach me at my book signings.
<br /> If you want me to answer you personally, I try and keep out with my emails. You can email me at fred@fredalanwolf.com.
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1105726064373181862005-01-14T10:03:00.000-08:002005-01-14T10:07:44.373-08:00Hi Mel and Robby and othersThanks for the blog posts. Currently I am in Portland, OR having just finished a lecture on some new and great ideas coming from quantum physics. I am already thinking about my next book project, and the ideas are still being formulated. If you wish to send me an email just do so to fred@fredalanwolf.com. Also do check out my web page www.fredalanwolf.com for all information about what I’m up to these days. I’ll be on the road until Jan 23rd.
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1104269201034278972004-12-28T13:23:00.000-08:002004-12-28T13:26:41.033-08:00Back from the FutureHi Readers and Listeners!
<br />
<br />I haven’t been a good blogger these days—to much stuff to do and then the holidays. Well; you know the game especially around holiday times. I want to wish you all a very good year. I hope to see 2005 bloom with new promise and more peace.
<br /> If you want to get hold of me, best is to write me care of my email address fred@fredalanwolf.com.
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1098737305756372302004-10-25T13:41:00.000-07:002004-10-25T13:48:25.760-07:00Boston and Chicago I just completed my lecture and workshop at the Theosophical Society in Wheaton and was happy with the response and interest. On Friday, in Chicago at Transitions Bookshop, I also did a book signing and gave a talk to what appeared to me as a standing room only audience. I am really excited to see how well the Bleep movie is being received, even though it is slow to make it way back East of the Rockies. Next stop in Martha’s Vineyard (see my web site for more info.)
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1097423588696396202004-10-10T08:46:00.000-07:002004-10-10T08:53:08.696-07:00Fred Alan Wolf's Parallel UniversesI am spending a quiet Sunday after my appearance on Michael Benner's KPFK radio show in greater Los Angeles and my two appearances in Anaheim at the Learning Light Center where on two occasions I spoke to standing room only audiences about the kind of stuff that goes through my mind, such as time travel, yoga, the quantum physics in the Bleep movie, and where we are all going as we parade our way through the 21st century.
<br /> It was really amazing to me that there was so much interest. More about this later.
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1097175196475650492004-10-07T11:45:00.000-07:002004-10-07T11:56:31.703-07:00You know it's funny.I'm just about to begin the hectic schedule of speaking, book signing, and doing radio spots all in connection with my new book. It just so happens that the book was released just as the "Bleep" movie started making the great rounds it currently is enjoying. I am certainly grateful but I find it funny that all this is happening now when frankly I could just as well take life easier.
<br />But life has a sense of humor. I remember when I got started in this game of writing books and doing speaking gigs. Then it was hard to get the kind of publicity I now enjoy and I would have given nearly anything to get it. Now, I just take it as it comes and goes. Always with a smile.
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8600139.post-1097107699360474402004-10-06T17:05:00.000-07:002004-10-06T17:08:19.360-07:00Fred Alan Wolf's Parallel UniversesHi blog readers! I will just add a few short words here to let you all know I am off and running tommorow with my first "Yoga of Time Travel" presentation in Southern California. I'll fill you all in after the talk.
<br />Fred Alan Wolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10500247085723442668noreply@blogger.com1