![]() In other words, if you learn or experience something in the future a small number of tubulins previously entangled would still communicate this information in a somewhat vague way to your past consciousness. Perhaps the sudden premonitions people experience may be entangled tubulins communication separated in time. So…if the quantum brain theorists are correct, then the brain operates in part by quantum entanglement and superposition. So, it may be possible that the brain actually entangles tubulin dimmers in microtubules as a mechanism for data processing, which results in consciousness, as we know it. ![]() Interestingly enough some work at the University of Chicago by Sayantani Ghosh a few years ago demonstrated the entanglement of atoms vs. I recall reading about some work by a fellow named Brukner who postulated that entangled photons measured in successive events changed the previous polarization measurements indicating the possibility of communication through time. ![]() That method of storage would protect data by storing it at multiple locations. To further complicate things, many believe the brain stores data holographically, which distributes the data in different tubulins in the same and different neurons of the brain. This suggests tremendous qubits of data per second per neuron. I have seen data indicating 10 to the 16th calculations per second may be made in each microtubule. Microtubules are in turn made of alpha and beta-tubulin dimers (about 10 to the 7th per neuron). In this theory the brain operates as a quantum computer in nano structures in the neurons called microtubules. One possible explanation involves the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory of consciousness, which is quite controversial. but perhaps the mind can reach back in time and touch itself by virtue of its own psychic make-up? I couldn't tell you a mechanism by which that would happen. However, given the sorts of fulfilled prophecies, dreams of future events, and related things that happened historically long before such technologies were developed (if they've been developed), I'm disinclined to believe Linda's premonitions were because of some external technological apparatus. Now, given how little we know, I won't rule that out. I don't suppose that visions of the future, waking or dreaming, necessarily have any sort of technological link. What a person DOES is sometimes so much more revealing than anything he might say. What else is out there that is known about but not yet developed in the light of day? Probably a whole lot! I just know that I am really enjoying getting to know this person and watching how he deals with this situation. If someone had put a drawing of an Ionic Breeze in front of Edward Teller in 1962 would he have believed the source that handed him the drawing? Brown may have been "ahead of his time" in the twenties and forties and sixties but that is not stopping people NOW from finally seeing what he was trying to show them. So why be in a rush to tell everything when its a waiting game anyway!ĭr. How and why should people believe them? Well, maybe the only way is for time to prove them out. Seems like this is the problem that seers and wisemen have had through the centuries. Maybe we are just given as much as we can chew at any one time? Now you are saying, "yes but ( sort of) IF I had been told EVERYTHING about Townsend Brown all at once, would I have believed those sources? And then, you added, would others have believed me? Perhaps that was a problem that was wisely avoided? Perhaps thats the way with everything and everybody. You even admitted that there were moments when you whined ! and we have seen little reflections of that here and there! I have seen you complain about not getting all of the material that you wanted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |