• Home
  • extraterrestrial hypothesis

Tag: extraterrestrial hypothesis

Edgar MitchellThe Quantum Hologram model proposed by Dr. Edgar Mitchell (seen in the photograph), Dr. Rudy Schild , Dr. Walter Schemp and other capable scientists valiantly expanding theoretical constructs that may better explain ‘anomalies’ and empirical data (however unconventional it may be)… should be studied. This model includes and transcends a net physical explanation that some UFOs – if genuine – are physical machines or devices. This valid hypothesis (largely based on the recorded physical effects of UFO’s) is also often associated with the ETH or “extraterrestrial hypothesis” (normally associated – but not limited – to the idea of technological advanced physical beings, for instance, as proposed by physicist Dr. Stanton Friedman). However, the Quantum Hologram (or QH) also includes and transcends the hypothesis that some genuine UFOs can well be some sort of mind-like, information-control mechanism which can be interpreted also as cybernetic-like (as proposed by Jacques Vallée’s ‘software’ – like, information control mechanism which can exert control on our reality, our minds and society and which – curiously enough – can also be theoretically invaded and modified by human agency). Needless to say, the latter position can also be confounded with UFO entities thought to be limited to existence as spiritual beings but that is another discussion.

So – to simplify – is the UFO phenomenon primarily based on technologically advanced physical machines (the nuts & bolts approach) or is it an  information control mechanism as Dr. Jacques Vallée proposes? It is BOTH through a reality and mechanism that includes and transcends both interpretations. That reality and mechanism would be the Quantum Hologram and – if it becomes useful to solve the UFO quandary and other so-called “paraphysical” quandaries- it is bound to become widespread news as part of a more complete, scientifically robust proposal applicable both to conventional physics and to the unconventional (more mind-interacting) physics of UFOs and other phenomena that combine the qualitative, subjetive, meaningful and experiential with the objective and material.

 With the Quantum Hologram approach we need not have to choose between either the nuts & bolts or the information options. Both can be seen as integrated.

A sophisticated understanding of the QH would be what many advanced extraterrestrial civilizations would have mastered to “collapse” space-time and-or to transfer themselves by delocalizing themselves from physicality and then “materializing” to the region of physical universe desired. The information aspect of the QH would define the type of physicality these beings may be able to “relocate” themselves in, including variable physical densities, time frames and time frequency rates. Moreover, the term “Interdimensional” could acquire a more nuanced and precise meaning.

 The QH would supplement other forms of achieving dettachment from classical physical limitations, such as the canceling of gravitons through the generation of micro black holes and Kaluza-Klein particles (associated to a 5th spatial dimension) and Alcubierre space-time metric distorsions (about which I’ve written elsewhere in Exonews here and here).

The QH may also supplement the findings of Nassim Haramein about the geometric structures maintaining vectorial equilibrium of forces and interconnecting all of space-time at the vacuum level.

The QH reconciles apparent irreconcilable opposites through its compatibility with a “both-and” explanation, a more inclusive, relational logic or way of thinking with a third ontologically real element existing in a higher level of reality as transdisciplinarity philosopher Basarab Nicolescu might agree. The emerging science and society suitable for living more sanely under the recognition of non-local interconnectivity and its effects on classic space-time would quite likely make use of this kind of more inclusive logic and, moreover, corresponding technological advances would ensue.

Without this logic of deeper relationship and complementarities capable of assisting us to generate a more complex (and simultaneously more fundamental and simpler) worldview of greater unity and connectivity and of being engineered with concrete “para” physical effects, the fragmenting tendencies of human societies – instinctively and academically – operating for the most part under classic, binary, two-value logic will be incongruous with the need to harmonize the human species on a planetary scale, now that we are experiencing ever-growing complexity, interdependence, an increase in uncertainty and interconnectivity.

The news here is that, to create a viable planetary society capable of intelligently dealing with many exopolitical situations (as humanity’s political relations with intelligences that may surpass and ‘control’ spacetime), we’ll need to grow up in order to function in practical manners under that more inclusive “both-and logic” with an included middle also compatible with the QH model representing a higher level of reality reconciling classical opposites. Thus, we urgently need to know more about why the QH model is helpful on many respects.

The QH Model (Quantum Hologram Model) possesses a key aspect interpreted as information frequencies (currently under Fourier Transform mathematics). Every physical object can be re-interpreted as these frequencies. It also possesses a classical, physical, particulate aspect when the coherent decodifiers of those frequencies coincide with those frequencies. Thus, the QH acommodates both informational and physical complementary aspects of a more integrated reality. It would be an expression of the science of the future emerging today and useful to help us overcome some of the “either-or” dichotomies limiting the human mind and our experiences to a life of disconnection within the confines of space and time separation. It may be useful to establish any intelligent, future dialogue with physical beings capable of collapsing and modifying space-time by using a more inclusive, pre-physical reality and its associated logic.

The QH model would be compatible with my proposal about the role of experience and observation and the corresponding  actualization of (time forward and time-backward) wave function possibilities (originating in a pre-physical, purely informational, subtle-mental realm in which exterior ‘objects’ and “systems” are equally co-causal with interior, subjective and intersubjective experiences). The vaster array of experiential possibilities themselves would be ‘reduced’ or limited to a set of probabilities coinciding with a particular physical system’s self-consistency and coherence a perspective from which the experienced observation is made. Future possibilities as causes and past causes as possibilities would be combined to achieve the observational coherence under what may be called (in Inca-Andean terms) a “Tinkuy” or creative coming together of worlds.

In my view the Quantum Hologram would be an interphase between all possibilities allowed by the mental subtle realm of existence causally operating under a more inclusive logic and all posible coherent physical universes or systems causally operating under a classical logic. This decodification and actualization (also as a form of decoherence) might perhaps extend to all fractal scales (also within the vacuum itself), particularly if there is a form of panpsychism also capable of different degrees of decohering observation-experience in every scale.

Besides that “mouthful” or complex phrasing about emerging explanatory concepts that – in my view – are necessary and can also be consistently associated with the QH, I reiterate that the news here (the good news here) is that the QH model is already capable of acommodating two of the most important interpretive positions that stand to reason to be the nature of genuine, sufficiently verified, intelligently interacting, ‘otherworldly’ UFOs:

A ‘software-cybernetic-information’ interpretive position about their mind-like and-or information-like-modifying quality affecting physical nature, our minds and society and the more classical “nuts & bolts” interpretive position so popular in classical scientific ufology (or of ufology attempting to be as scientific as posible under classical thinking) and an interpretive physicalist “nuts & bolts” position, especially noted during the late 1940’s “Project Sign” era and during the 1950’s contactee era in which “flying saucers” where seriously (and mostly exclusivistically) considered to be physical devices. The QH simultaneosuly acommodates what can be called a “virtual,” information-aspect described as frequencies and a solid, material, “within space-time” aspect.

Now we have a model that ushers in part of what we need to know. It ushers in the future by acommodating both basic interpretive positions and may even be useful to bring the UFO mystery into a more scientifically-pallatable framework, helping scientists interested in this subject  to “come out of the closet” whilst  maintaining their credibility and respectability.

 See the video from Dr. Rudy Schild conference: “Modern Miracles and the Quantum Hologram”

What is the Quantum Hologram? Brief essay by Dr. Edgar Mitchell

By Giorgio Piacenza

extraterrestrial-hypothesis-with-related-tags-and-termsStrictly speaking, “PROOF” of the extraterrestrial presence (from a rigorous academic point of view) would be more (classically speaking and before the findings of Kurt Gödel) limited to mathematics and logic but not to evidence obtained inductively after the senses however frequent the perceptions. The same applies to scientific theories, models, explanations that correspond to observations or sensorially obtained data. However, there is STRONG, ROBUST EVIDENCE that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is VALID and that it is the more LOGICAL hypothesis to explain at least SOME UFO cases. Structured objects flying in ways that challenge Newtonian physics while sometimes producing strange electromagnetic interference near airplanes when seen by experienced observers under the sunlight cannot be seriously explained away as reflections, lenticular clouds or the planet Venus. Here the simplest explanation, even following the advice (not an unfailing law) from “OCCAM’s “Razor” is the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis rather than trying to contrive other explanations that do not fit the data as well (as was done several times with Projects Grudge, Blue Book, the highly biased 1968 “CONDON Panel” and other mostly dismissive research efforts on UFOs), especially after UFO incidents that involved commercial and military pilots and-or radar-eyesight evidence. Even if one UFO case were most likely due to an intelligent extraterrestrial presence, the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis would have to be seriously considered and – unlike what was concluded by the “Condon Committee” – just to understand the physics involved (which apparently cancels and-or manipulates gravitational and inertial forces) there would definitely be great scientific merit in researching UFOs.

This evidence that goes against the so-called “Misidentification Hypothesis” favored by skeptics not only includes contactees and abductees and pilots and military personnel and documents and regular people all over the world occasionally seeing structured metallic-looking disc shaped or ovoid shaped “aerodynes”  but also analyzed photographs, videos and specific physical samples or objects (like alleged implants removed by Dr. Roger Leir and his team), for instance with isotopes that not only do not naturally occur on Earth but which also emit radio waves while subcutaneously lodged in normal people that alleged to have been abducted by some varieties of aliens. There also are serious CREDIBLE, sane, responsible “whistleblower” witnesses (some hundreds of them only in the Disclosure Project) and as Monsignor Corrado Balducci essentially said in Italian TV, there’s a healthy limit to being suspicious about what others say because –in order to have a functioning society – the normal human need to give some credence to human witness testimony must take over!

It could be said that evidence for out of the ordinary events that recur in a meteorological-like (semi predictable/semi unpredictable) manner can be assigned Bayesian-style probabilities or are more suitable for exopolitical, social science-based qualitative analysis. This may be useful for events that perhaps not only occupy external, objective space for a physically perceptible time within classical parameters, but also (in an equally causally applicable and “real” way) a greater degree of shared, internal, subjective space. It may be that the physical reality systems in which the ETs normally operate has a greater degree of subjective space influence. These are new scientific issues that also ask for a new metaphysical approach and scientific methodology. However, there still is good classical evidence for an objective phenomenon whose best logical explanation would be the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. www.ufoevidence.org

For instance, there are trained pilots (check out Dr. Richard Haines’ and other scientists’ NARCAP), even some valiant astronomers that could not identify some objects they saw displaying intelligent maneuvering that cannot be replicated with current human technology as far as we know; there are radar-visual cases that include military pilots. There are analyzed UFO photographs of metallic looking structured craft, landing traces with soil and plant anomalies.   In fact the main reason for denial would be that it sounds ludicrous because it challenges how we naturally perceive “reality” through our physical senses and our biological-psychological adaptations to a classic (non-quantum or local) physical experience. We simply dismiss and ridicule ideas and reports that seem more fit to be included in a movie or fantasy and assume that being well educated we should already know by now; that “they” wouldn’t be able to travel faster than the speed of light…in all cases assuming that what we know applies to the alleged ETs.

Most likely, “proof” doesn’t exist in an absolute, objective sense but what may available to an intelligent self-conscious mind is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable subjective choice. Even in a formal mathematical and logical sense, “proof” may not apply if one restricts deduction to the elements within a coherent logical system. If one proves consistency one may fail to prove completeness.  Gödel could only prove that that form of indeterminacy exists regarding arithmetic with natural numbers. From Wikipedia:  “The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an “effective procedure” (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorems

Both following an inductive procedure and a deductive procedure, accepting or rejecting the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) comes down to a subjective decision but, even if a majority of particular scientists in most scientific institutions do not pronounce themselves in its favor, does this mean that they are qualified to reject the evidence? Not scientifically if theirs is an offhanded a priori reaction without carefully looking at the evidence. As a group they already rejected many good explanations and theories that are now considered valid and (to non-initiates) “proven.” In fact, because “science” relates to principles and method, non-accredited individuals may have a better scientific “attitude” open to valid and scientifically interesting evidence and also be able to conduct serious scientific research whether accredited scientists agree with it or not. I would say that, from the point of view of Integral Theory there’s only a partial validity and a limit to the postmodern idea that “scientific facts” depend on the agreement or “social construction” of orthodox institutional scientists. That social construction aspect may also start with a serious minority willing to look at things “out of the box.”

Oftentimes, people say “There is no scientific evidence that ETs are here” because they think that scientists would agree on it, but that is not a valid statement. In fact, objective “evidence” about unique phenomena that can be included in a scientific study does exist to differing degrees. Just as we have evidence of weather patterns that don’t need to be solidly predictable, it is not necessary for the evidence pointing to the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis to be perfectly  regular or predictable. Perhaps read what is also disclosed in http://www.theblackvault.com/ or in the following good page http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html

Some people also utter “There’s no proof that ETs are here” when off course (especially after Gödel and philosophers of science like Kuhn and Popper) science doesn’t really deal with final “proofs” but with temporary theoretical models that are not considered final any longer but rather (and ideally) open to improvement. Occasionally they also say “Science has not demonstrated the reality of extraterrestrial visitors” forgetting that “science” is more a methodological procedure than an entity that makes choices and itself demonstrates something being real or not.

I think that learning about the means ETs may have to interact with our particular world/reality system (even if briefly from our linear perspective) would activate in us other ways of understanding other aspects of reality also co-existing with us. It may activate in us interpretive “instincts” adapted to non-linear ways of being which are parts of deeper aspects of our nature. These “instincts” may be less related to a dichotomous “either-or” Aristotelian or classic way of thinking (more useful for understanding stable exterior, objective patterns). They may relate to more inclusive relational “laws” connecting subjective and objective aspects of experience and reality (epistemology and ontology) and they may subsume (not discard) classical rules of inference. We would need to know what other possibilities there are to understand and participate in the Cosmos (especially besides classical logic and physicality) in order to better understand the “ET mind” and to make intelligent, informed decisions.

Perhaps Integral Theory is one of the integrative models emerging within the search for post postmodern intellectual approaches to help us better understand the complex world, our lives, ETs and our roles are currently situated, especially in an age in which traditional linear thinking doesn’t work well with the non-linear, uncertainty-generating interconnectness we have artificially created.  I think we need to grow up intellectually and ethically to thrive based on more profound synergistic patterns in which information rules but not just in a randomly self-organized way but with an active role for consciousness and…purpose.

Furthermore, I think that we can indeed grow up and that our genuine, long term security rests in not on remaining ignorant about what is going on. Otherwise – using a reasonable exopolitical analysis – I think that there are different forms of evidence that indicate we won’t be considered capable of handling our becoming a space-faring civilization and we’ll need different kinds of the “powers that be” to decide things for us. In fact, if we don’t grow up to a more mature way of thinking we may not earn a minimal status that equates with cosmic-level “sovereignty”.

We need to stop bickering among us about whether there is scientific evidence that ETs are really here or not. Our scientists must at least valiantly come out of their cocoons and self-reinforcing conservative, doctrine-based institutions to really serve humanity in our current situation by being willing to look at the entire evidence in detail and in earnest so that more of us can start thinking politically (with greater credibility and influence) about important consequences and implications such as to why different alien entities with different agendas seem to be allowed to pursue their different goals using us in different ways based on our current state of understanding. We need to understand how they apparently come to agree with each other or at least to agree not to interfere with each other’s plans too much. We need to find out in a non-condemnatory, non-xenophobic but, instead, more integrally intelligent manner who among the various ETs can reasonably be considered our “friends” and our “foes” in terms of them (even if all were capable of thinking non-linearly and in many ways more “integrally” than most humans) being or not being willing to patiently work with us to assist our development toward our highest potentials as a species while simultaneously not violating our CONSCIOUS free choice.

Through CE-V human-propitiating contact techniques like those of Sixto Paz and others, more experiment-style and (to a degree) repeatable evidence could be obtained. If more of us become willing to research with a genuine scientific attitude and even to proactively make contact in order to find out more directly “who is who” among the ETs and what the (hyperdimensional, social and ethical) “rules of engagement” might be, progress will be made towards subjectively (and inter-subjectively) assigning “proof” to the ever-increasing and already profuse “evidence.” Let’s grow up as a species and consider all the possibilities in earnest!

By Giorgio Piacenza

 

 

Copyright © 2017 Exopolitics Institute News Service. All Rights Reserved.