The Big Bang Reconsidered (E=MC2)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Einstein’s general theory of relativity has not only been proven correct time and time again, but has had implicit in it, ideas that Einstein himself disagreed with on a personal level. This must be properly understood, as this fact is often misused within popular science, as a means to undermine the genius of Einstein. To be clear – E=MC2 is absolutely correct and is not wrong in any way. As a formula, it contributes to, and does not contradict the thinking behind quantum physics. Therefore, it logically follows that Einstein was entirely ‘correct’ when he worked-out that energy equals mass – times the speed of light (squared). This is exactly the same formula that Heisenberg used to formulated his ‘uncertainty theory’, and which Georges Lemaitre used to mathematically work-out that the universe had a definite beginning. Given that this is the case, why is Einstein often portrayed as ‘wrong’ within popular science? This is because Einstein did not personally agree with many of the implications of his own theory, a fact that demonstrates that Einstein managed to ‘think’ beyond his own limited viewpoints. It some of Einstein’s personal opinions that are at odds with his own formula – and not his formula that is ‘wrong’. Many popular scientific narratives conflate Einstein’s personal opinions with his formula, and give the false impression that his formula (and not his opinions) is at odds with the thinking of quantum theory. This is bad science, and one is left wondering what lies behind this obvious attack on Einstein’s genius.

Einstein believed that the universe existed in a ‘steady state’, and was not the product of a sudden creation event. Lemaitre – using Einstein’s formula – proved that Einstein’s personal opinion was at odds with the mathematical implications of his formula. Einstein checked Lemaitre’s mathematical work and agreed that it did suggest that the universe had a definite beginning. Not only this, but Lamaitre’s work suggested that the universe was expanding, and that it emerged from a tiny cosmic egg (or ‘super atom’). Einstein agreed with Lemaitre’s mathematics, but disagreed with his physics. Edwin Hubble, during the 1920’s, worked out that the universe was huge, that it was expanding, and was billions of years old (although his assessment of 2 billion years was wrong). Hubble’s genius was that he scientifically proved that the universe was billions of light years across, and not just hundreds of thousands of light years, as previously thought. Indeed, Fred Hoyle – like Einstein – believed that the universe was eternal and that it already contained hydrogen and helium. In 1949, Fred Hoyle coined the derogatory term ‘Big Bang’ to refer to what he thought was a religiously premised pseudo-science. The eminent Soviet cosmologist George Gamov disagreed with the strong-willed Hoyle – and instead agreed with Lemaitre’s idea of a ‘Big Bang’. Even within the Soviet scientific system (that produced many great scientists), George Gamov was considered a genius in his own right (being elected at the young age of just 28, to being a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). He was an expert in radioactivity, and nuclear fusion, but despite the privileged life he experienced in the USSR, he decided to defect to the West in the early 1930’s – thus betraying his homeland. Whilst building on Soviet expertise and scientific innovation, Gamov exported his knowledge to the USA, where his contribution to science is acknowledged but played-down (Gamov was of the opinion that all hydrogen and helium was suddenly created during the Big Bang).

Although the universe is now known to be 13.8 billion years old, it is considered not old enough for its heat content to be distributed evenly everywhere – as is the case. This is where Alan Guth’s theory of ‘inflation’ comes into play. He stated that although Einstein was right to assume that nothing could travel faster than light, prior to the creation of the universe, this reality did not yet apply. Just before the Big Bang, when the four forces of nature were still a singularity, a certain uniformity of temperature was locked-in to the entire system, before its rapid expansion or ‘inflation’.  Guth premised that the universe originated from a tiny volume, and when the universe was both young and small, its heat content spread evenly, which was retained as space expanded faster than light. Subsequent photographs of the universe just after the Big Bang have subsequently confirmed that the Big Bang happened. Less than one billionth of a second after the Big Bang, a tiny bubble (smaller than a fraction of an atom) with a very high temperature was formed. This contained as of yet the undifferentiated four forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear forces. This is considered a combined superforce. Gravity suddenly split-off from this superforce as the universe rapidly expanded. As the universe expanded, it cooled, triggering a burst of energy which initiated the hyper-inflation of the universe. At this point (perhaps just a second since its beginning), the superforce collapsed into its four constituent natural forces, and eventually light was emitted. As light slowed down, matter was formed, which was then acted upon by gravity (generating spherical shapes). All this was fore-seen in Einstein’s E=MC2. The Big Bang is very much a work in progress within the realm of human science, and could be displaced if new knowledge is discovered or revealed through further research.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Prior to the scientific work of Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), it was thought that the location and momentum of a particle could be precisely measured in time and space. However, all this changed in 1927, when Heisenberg published his work now known as the ‘Uncertainty Principle’, ‘Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle’, or ‘Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle’. From this point of time onwards, it was understood that the location and momentum of a particle (such as an electron) could not be precisely measured. The scientific universe experienced a paradigm shift which suggested that the world of matter at the atomic or sub-atomic level, could not be ‘known’ through the use of conventional science. Why is this thought to be the case? It is thought to be the case because a particle can not be a) ‘observed’, b) ‘measured’ and c) ‘predicted’. The so-called ‘quantum theory’ of reality suggests that the principles of material science – which rely upon observation, measurement and the prediction related to repeated experimentation – does not, and cannot be applied to low-level physics, despite the fact that such methods continue to function in high-level physics, and remain valid for the macro-world of ordinary, or everyday observable phenomena.

If Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ is correct, why does the macro-world remain determinate and apparently ‘certain’? In other words, why has logic and reason, (and the development of modern science), all emerged from the apparent ‘certainty’ of the world of observable matter? Today, all school children are taught that an electron is both a ‘particle’ and a ‘wave’. Through the ‘double slit’ experiment (whereby a stream of light is fed through an ever narrowing slit), it can be demonstrated that when the slit is ‘wide’, light behave as if it consisted of particles, but when the slit is narrowed – there is a point where the light beam narrows – but then suddenly expands outwards into a wave-like formation. This being the case, why doesn’t the macro-world experience terminal ‘indeterminacy’? Whilst Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) was re-assessing Albert Einstein’s famous equation of E=MC2, he discovered that a particle wavelength is inversely related to its momentum. Waves are not observable in the macro-world, because Planck’s Constant (h) is so small, and the momentum of macro-objects so large, that any wavelength possessed by a macro-object is infinitesimally small. However, as sub-atomic particles possess very small momentum (again, interpreted through Planck’s Constant) , the wavelengths of sub-atomic particles are more readily observable. Therefore, the material world as it appears to the human senses, manifests as a ‘real’ and ‘constant’ construct. Gravity operating on the ‘mass’ of the macro-world might well generate the conditions for a material world appearing to be ‘stable’ to human perception. Of course, the physical environment is the arena of evolution through natural selection, and so the human senses correspond directly to the sense-objects that they are designed to ‘sense’. As the human brain evolved to make sense of this ‘immediate’ environment, it did not develop the ability to ‘sense’ or ‘see’ the micro-world. The human brain evolved for the purpose of generating meaningful movement through the evolutionary environment – with ‘thought’ being a by-product of this development. Although human-beings have had to develop technology to peer into the sub-atomic world, nevertheless, the human-mind has been able (through mathematics) to ‘infer’ the likelihood of a quantum reality.

The macro-world behaves through strict physical laws – laws which are used everyday in the production and maintenance of advanced and progressive science and technology. Particles are measurable and their location clearly known. Heisenberg mathematically discovered that the micro-world did not behave like this. Albert Einstein contributed greatly to modern science, but did not think quantum reality was correct. Many today state that Albert Einstein was wrong, but I disagree with this. Albert Einstein – being a great scientist – simply tried to prove quantum theory ‘wrong’, as a means to confirm its validity. After-all, his theory of relatively greatly advanced the ‘science’ of quantum understanding. More to the point, despite Heisenberg’s breakthrough, it could be ‘wrong’ because humanity is currently viewing the situation through the rubric of false assumptions and interpretations. How can a material universe be built on an immaterial foundation? Furthermore, quantum theory cannot, and does not explain the existence of the macro-world. As it is the macro-world that humanity exists within, and has built the edifice of its science and spirituality upon, it should be the quantum physicists who should be trying to explain why it is that their view of the world cannot explain material reality. Whatever the case, in reality, Heisenberg arrived at his interesting observation through the practice of a strict material mathematics and science. In the sense of good and reliable research – as Heisenberg would agree – ‘certainty’ of logical methodology is of the greatest importance. It was by observing the nature of material reality that Heisenberg arrived at his famous ‘uncertainty principle’.

The Material Basis of Quantum Mechanics

Quantum theory is an extrapolation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the study of the construction and functionality of low level physical matter. It is not a theology, a metaphysics or a spirituality. Without quantum mechanics – that is the mathematical analysis of low level physical matter – there can be no quantum theory. Quantum theory in its strict scientific manifestation, has been taken by idealists and adapted and adopted to serve all kinds of disembodied thinking – effectively the process of distorting hard material science to justify theological thinking – or the exact opposite of what scientific thinking is supposed to be. The reason this happens is because the implications of quantum mechanics (essentially the paradoxical idea that light energy can behave as either a ‘wave’ and a ‘particle’ – but never at the sametime), suggests that low level reality is different from that of macro reality as described by classical physics. As classical physics serves most human needs within macro reality (i.e. the everyday world), the low level world of quantum mechanics gives the impression to the ordinary mind that there are two radically different realities functioning simultaneously. This suggests ‘nothing is certain’, and this idea has been incorrectly used to allow for theology to be used as a consequence of this paradox – but this is illogical. Theology is not a product of science and remains ‘unscientific’ from beginning to end – and this remains the case regardless of the extent of the development of scientific understanding. The way the human mind is used to develop science, is very different from the manner in which the mind has been used in the past to develop theology (with its accompanying mythology that its theistic content was somehow developed ‘outside’ the mind that conceived it). The reality is that the micro (low level) world of quanta (or small pockets of energy), and the macro world of everyday life do reconcile – albeit in a manner that is not yet fully understandable to the rational mind. This is an ongoing process of scientific development and discovery. Even if it is allowed that human perception somehow ‘adds’ to the phenomenon being observed – there is no evidence that this process exists outside the world of physical matter. This would suggest that ‘consciousness’ (used as a back-door into science by religionists), is not an entity ‘separate’ from matter (like a theological ‘spirit’ or a ‘soul’), but is rather part and parcel of an integral aspect of material existence. Whatever consciousness is – it does not lie ‘outside’ of the realm of material existence. This is because it is incorrect to associate ‘consciousness’ with a theological concept of ‘soul’. Why this happens is curious, because even within theological teaching, it is clear that a ‘soul’ is very different from humanity’s ‘ordinary’ conscious awareness. Modern science does not speculate beyond the logical analysis of physical existence – whereas the entire premise of theology is that it speculates about what might lie beyond the boundaries of material existence. Both systems of thought are completely different and cannot be reconciled without one over-coming and subsuming the other. The theories that underpin quantum mechanics are scientific and not theological. Conscious awareness – regardless of its origin, nature and functionality – is not a ‘spirit’ that stands in opposition to physical existence. Therefore, it logically follows that quantum mechanics – regardless of its paradoxes and implications – cannot be used as a substitute for theology. Once the material basis of human consciousness is fully understood and appreciated, an in-depth study and analysis of its implication and functionality can be ‘scientifically’ pursued outside of the limitations that theological understanding suggest and impose. Without firmly separating the study of evolutionary consciousness from theology – the true extent of the power of the human mind will not be fully understood.

Other Dimensions (Out There)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The main stumbling block with analysing the idea of witnessing another reality, is ensuring that what is experienced, is not a product of the malfunction of the human brain, and its ability to perceive, cognise or interpret. An individual could be suffering from any number of internally generated psychological and physiological conditions, that interfere with the usual process of sensing the material environment. Such divergence away from normal function in the brain (and body), obviously leads to an internally generated view of the physical world, that does not actually exist ‘out there’. If a group of people appear to share a ‘visionary’ experience, it cannot be rejected out of hand, that all concerned are suffering from a perceptual ailment, or that the group is engaging in a ‘cult-like’ activity involving peer pressure, mutual conditioning, and interpretive reinforcement (i.e. a group hallucination). From a scientific perspective, these issues cannot be ignored whilst attempting to establish the theoretical principle of the existence of different planes of reality. Of course, belief systems effect how the world is perceived simply because that is one of their primary functions, but ‘belief’ does not necessarily equate to correct perception or interpretation of reality. Although theoretical physics postulates that other dimensions may exist (i.e. ‘String Theory’ and ‘Quantum Theory’, etc), these realities are mathematical probabilities, and not the product of sensory observation in the usual or mundane sense. In other words, the only manner in which these realities have been understood to exist, is through the use of numbers as cognised by the human brain. This is very different to the structure of religious or spiritual visions of other realities, which always appear to be like this (mundane) reality – but ‘ideal’ in nature. This can be ‘ideally’ good or bad, depending upon belief ad circumstance, but there is no scientific reason why other dimensions should be in anyway ‘familiar’ to human beings and their cognitive sensory array (which has evolved within a particular environment), or even ‘perceptible’ to the human mind in the ordinary sense.

Quantum Entanglement – Consciousness and Matter Integrated

QuantumEntanglement-01

‘Possibly the Western dichotomy between “material reality” and mental images is exaggerated or even false. Our nervous system has the power and resources to create images from external patterns of information or from information stored in the nervous system itself – and to give it a meaning: these experiences may be the patterned processes themselves in the nervous system: perhaps within special association centres. They would in that case belong to the same type of “reality” as all other processes, physiological or physical.’

(REA Johansson – The Dynamic Psychology of Early Buddhism: The One Reality – Page 26)

The Buddha taught that reality is a combination of mind and matter that cannot be limited to its own concept, or properly interpreted by the ordinary intellectual mind. This is because of the limitation of human language which evolved as a means to survive (through communication) within the material conditions of the planet earth. Human language, and the human mind that developed it, was premised upon explaining, interpreting, predicting, and directing the immediate environment as it presented itself to human settlers. It did not have to work-out complicated mathematical, chemical, or engineering formula in early history, and was limited to environmental manipulation. Later, of course, the human mind did develop the ability to see beyond, beneath, through and into their immediate environment. This has led to the development of modern science with its dualistic categorisation of phenomena into subjective and objective elements, and its functional preference for the objective. Religions, mysteries, and idealistic interpretations of the world were designated ‘subjective’ and relegated to the realms of groundless imagination, whilst the observation and measurement of the environment was promoted to the realm of supreme fact. Modern science, by necessity, rejects the subjective and embraces the objective. Its failures over the last two centuries has been eclipsed by the sheer weight of its successes over the same time period. It has led to industry, technology, medicine, and space travel, etc, and is self-evidently superior to any other mode of thought that has ever existed throughout the history of humanity.

Part of the relegation of the subjective into the realms of superstition and supernatural, has had the ongoing problem of essentially rejecting one very powerful aspect of the human mind. Even if an individual studies and becomes a scientists – he or she will still possess an imaginative aspect of mind, even if it is not required in their daily work. Some scientists are atheistic whilst others profess a religious belief in their private life. It seems that the development of modern science has not, as yet also led to the extinction of the human imagination. This being the case, it is an interesting speculation to consider what the imagination is for in the human mind. It maybe that the way that human beings have used the imaginative process in their minds is incorrect, limited, or simply as of yet undeveloped. Perhaps ‘imagining’ religions, deities, ghosts, spirits, and the like, is a rehearsal for the next stage of human evolution, which cannot be limited to the nature of its apparent function. Many philosophers (including Karl Marx) have speculated and stated that reality is not just ‘mind’, and not just ‘matter’, but something inbetween, that is so sophisticated that human intelligence has not yet developed across the species to understand this advanced knowledge. This is a state of affairs very similar to the subject of Quantum Theory, which appears to contradict the ‘common sense’ of conventional Newtonian science.

The theory of Quantum Entanglement turns the assumptions of modern science to date, entirely upon its head. For instance, the presumed ability of one human mind to communicate with another human mind without the agency of physical interaction, has been considered a false imagination, thought-up by con artists and charlatans to make gullible people think that ‘telepathy’ is real. Of course, to date, other than circumstantial or incidental data, telepathy as defined as one mind communicating with another, has remained unproven when subjected to conventional scientific testing, but consider for a moment that this result maybe a product of testing a hypothesis in the wrong way. Quantum Entanglement states that if a subatomic particle splits into two – the two halves continue to communicate with one another for no obvious reason. This suggests that the human mind and physical reality are not two separate entities forever separated, but are in fact two distinct representations of the same time-space continuation that is not limited to its own definition of being. This might suggest that the human ability to ‘imagine’ is not an evolutionary error, but is rather the natural preparation of the human mind to develop higher abilities that are in fact the product of reality (and not myth), and which will one day be considered quite normal and the product of science. This will require the upgrading of human thought as regards to the nature and functionality of conventional science.

My Experience with ‘ghosts’

Ghosts-01

As a secular rationalist who has utilised the Chinese Buddhist meditation techniques to put my mind in order, (and turn it the right way around), I must stress from the start that I neither ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ in the notions of ghosts. Furthermore, as I do not follow, nor have I been influenced by the Judeo-Christian religion, I do not accept (or limit my experiences to) the often clichéd categories of ‘theist’, atheist’, or ‘agnostic’, and I neither ‘believe’ nor ‘disbelieve’ in a god-construct as a ‘first cause’ for existence, or as a psychological or emotional prop when times get hard. In fact, I view much of what passes as ‘religion’ as an interesting, but nevertheless misconstrued body of work premised mostly upon fantasy and myth. It seems to me that when humanity does not understand the machinations of the physical world, it retires into the confines of its own skull, and begins to worship random thought constructs that keep it warm on a cold night. However, I do acknowledge that usually well hidden aspects of religious teachings, do often contain the kernels of mind development techniques, but that these teachings are side-lined by religious authorities who simply wish to continue the religious domination of physical facts through the agency of myth. In a very real sense, the worshipping of ‘myth’ is not religion in the sense that religion is supposed to be a developmental device that ‘binds’ the aspirant with a higher goal, rather than condemn him or her to an earthly existence addicted to passing mental constructs.

Do paranormal events exist? From a strictly empirical perspective the answer is ‘no’. This means that there has never been a single ‘paranormal’ or ‘supernatural’ event observed as happening under the scrutiny of scientific conditions. This is because a so-called ‘paranormal event’ is defined as the momentary ‘suspending’ of the laws of nature. It is interesting to note that the ‘suspending’ of the laws of nature is exactly how the Judeo-Christian religion defines a ‘miracle’ and this seems to be the cultural base in the West for secular, paranormal events. Just as people believed ‘miracles’ happened during the religiously dominated medieval period, people living in the post-modern era continue this tradition and ‘believe’ that they too are also experiencing paranormal events. The modern academic subject of ‘Paranormal Psychology’ studies why people think they are experiencing paranormal events, and investigates (where possible) the physical circumstance surrounding the alleged event. To date, the vast majority of investigations have been solved as being the products of misconstrued natural events, hallucinations (singular or group), psychological or psychiatric dysfunction, and fraud. Although a small number of these investigations have not been solved, the circumstances surrounding them have not been declared ‘paranormal’ simply because there is no supporting evidence. The thinking is that these events will be explained as being ‘natural’ in due course.

The rational evidence, which is not premised upon religious faith, suggests that there is no such thing as paranormal events, and that what we are seeing is the reconstruction of a cultural religious myth repackaged for a secular age (similar to how Carl Jung explained that UFO’s were actually ‘halos’ re-imagined by Christians who were trying to come to terms with a modern technology that renders the teachings of the bible more or less redundant). Science defines reality in two ways; 1) Newtonian Mechanics which explains that the physical world is ‘measurable’ and clearly functions through cause and effect. The understanding of this cause and effect in many areas of physical life (including the atomic, and molecular) has allowed humanity to develop industry, medicine and advanced technology.

This advanced technology has enable humanity to ‘see’ into the atom and discern the sub-atomic particles and their peculiar behaviour. 2) Quantum Theory has been facilitated by the development of advanced technology that has allowed for the exploration of sub-atomic particles – which ‘appear’ and ‘disappear’ in the empty space that is being observed. Not only this, but sub-atomic particles (that appear unconnected) in physical space, effect one another without an observable medium that physically connects the two together. Of course, this does not mean that there is no connecting medium, but just that at the moment in the development of human science, no connecting medium has been discerned. This means that the macro-world as experienced by the bodily senses (and interpreted by the mind), is deterministic and obvious to understand through a developed mind. However, underlying the obvious surface-level of the world is a free-flowing void where sub-atomic particles arise and pass away in a non-deterministic manner. The physical world of human existence is both deterministic and non-deterministic, so although ‘nothing is certain’ (Heisenberg) at the sub-atomic level, everything is determinable (or ‘certain’) at the macro-level. What Western scientists have discovered through the use of advanced technology and experimentation, the Buddhist philosophical path assumes that it can realise through the extensive discipline of the body, and intense focusing of the mind, as if the Quantum vacuum (void) can be discovered by looking into the essence of physical matter (form). This happens because the ‘mind’ is focused (but not limited to) the brain, and the physical matter of the brain is the substance the Buddhist intensely studies through meditation.

Science – whether ‘Newtonian’ or ‘Quantum’ – is not myth but established fact, even if we admit the caveat that science is not a finished product, but a process very much in perpetual motion. Quantum Theory – although often co-opted by religionists to justify their belief systems – is neither ‘mythology’ nor ‘theology’. It is the product of a discerning mind observing and stripping-back the multitudinous layers of physical and Quantum existence. This is the basis from which I investigate my (two) experiences today that happened to me as a child. Although these experiences could be construed as ‘paranormal’, I am of the opinion that they are primarily ‘psychological’ in origin.

Experience One – Aged Two (1969) – Oxfordshire

My constructive memories start at around two and a half, and just before this time, my parents inform me that I used to come into their bedroom in the middle of the night, and say that there was a man standing in my bedroom – which was a small single room located across the landing. They would investigate and find no one, but I was allowed to sleep in their room every time this happened. When my family moved from this home, we were contacted by a friend who informed us that our old house had been in the local press. Apparently the new tenants who moved in after we left, reported seeing a WWII RAF pilot in the bedroom I used to sleep in. He apparently manifested halfway through the floor (as if he were standing on a different level to that which the house was built on). Historical research revealed that this area of Oxfordshire was once a WWII RAF base prior to the building of a new housing estate.

Experience Two – Aged Eight (1975) – Devon 

I slept in a large bedroom situated at the back of the house. I would wake-up in the middle of the night because I thought that I heard movement in the room. Looking-up I would see numerous people dressed in what I would describe as ‘Elizabethan’ dress – they seemed to be walking along a road or lane, more or less taking no notice of me. This housing estate dates back to WWII and was apparently built by German Prisoners of War. Before this, the area was farm land. I had this experience a number of times for about a year – and then my family moved house and the visions ceased. Afterwards, my family was contacted by the next tenants who had moved in. They asked us whether we had seen anything strange in the house, as they had been so frightened, they left to live elsewhere. They slept in my former back bedroom, and said that they used to hear noises and that on one night, a tea-set securely stored to the back of the top of a wardrobe, suddenly shot across the room and smashed into pieces!

I think that the phenomenon of lucid dreaming more or less explains these experiences. This occurs in a state of awareness that exists between the waking and sleeping state, where dreams manifesting in the mind, appear to the experiencer as if they are happening in the surrounding physical environment. In other words, events that seem to be concrete and real are mental constructs and are only theoretical imprints on the surface of the mind of physical events that may or may not have actually happened in the real world. In Elizabethan times, for instance, people obviously walked up or down roads and lanes, but this fact does not mean that they were doing so in the 1970’s, in a bedroom in Devon! Many WWII RAF fighter-pilots died whilst protecting the UK from Nazi German invasion, and many of these brave men would try to pilot their badly damaged aeroplanes back to their bases. Many of these men were also severally wounded whilst doing this. They attempted this because of the lack of RAF aeroplanes in the UK – making even a damaged Spitfire or Hurricane extremely valuable. Whether or not I saw a WWII pilot in Oxfordshire in 1969 – I do not truthfully know, although it is curious that others said that they did. It is further curious that others also said they experienced strange happenings in Devon after my (remembered) experiences. It could be that statistically people experience strange things quite often, and that a correlation between ‘witnessing’ events is being assumed where none actually exists. It could also be that chains of events are being inversed – or remembered back to front – placing the events in the wrong order or out of logical sequence. The apparent corroboration of my experiences by people unrelated to me, or unfamiliar with my experiences, would need to be subject to investigation to see if they are ‘real’ or simply ‘imagined’ events such as those used to justify religious experiences or ‘miracles’. As it stands, I do not know if these testimonies are correct or not.

%d bloggers like this: