John Wolf — Some Ramifications of a Frame by Frame Physical Reality

[Some good thinking here, worth pondering.]

Some Ramifications of a Frame by Frame Physical Reality

John Dorsey Wolf

Parts of me are not satisfied with my state of understanding of certain subjects and encouraged me to take it to another level. Innocent enough. But the subjects were: the origin and creation of the physical universe (all worlds), evolution, and cause and effect.

My head hurt just thinking about what I was going to be thinking about! “Well, if it were that easy, you would already have a deeper understanding, and the challenge wouldn’t be necessary!”

My beliefs about these matters have significantly changed in recent years, but I had not wrestled with the subjects enough to really get beyond initial “resonance” and philosophical agreement with what others have said. I needed to get to another level of “ownership” of these concepts.

Finally after weeks of struggle a different insight came to me, and that helped me take another step.

By definition this is “work in progress”, not ultimate truth, not even perhaps where many already “are”. It is a “best I can do for now” to feed my obsession about “how things work”. Having a place to stand relative to the “how” gives us a better footing for understanding “why”.

(John:) To quote one of many,

“According to Seth, the genesis of the Cosmos occurs in each moment. As such, there is literally no beginning and no end because beginning and end are ongoing processes. This primordial action of creation – of genesis – occurs in every quantum pulse, in every moment point of a “Great Chain of Being” that extends from body to soul to Causal Spirit. So we are literally beginning and ending anew in each nanosecond.” –Paul Helfrich

If we watch a movie of a book falling off a desk to the floor, we would perceive a continuous action; yet, if we looked at each frame of the movie we would see the book in a stationary position between the desk and the floor, and it would be getting closer and closer to the floor in each succeeding frame.

If each frame were produced in very high resolution with the help of a computer, like an animated movie, the sequence of frames would provide convincing evidence to our eyes that the book fell. As far as our senses know, the frames could be either “stop action” of an actual continuous event, or they could be created to give us the illusion of continuity.

When we see an object fall, we believe that the entire event occurs completely in the physical domain; furthermore, we have come to accept that a force called gravity is what draws the book downward, that there are certain “physical laws” associated with falling objects, and that our physical world functions in accordance with these and other laws.

Up until recently I, like many, viewed our physical reality as continuous and self-contained. It would follow that once created, it functions more or less autonomously.  Stars live and die, planets revolve around their suns, even physical life finds its way into existence via some kind of self-progression.

But suppose that physical reality is NOT CONTINUOUS. Suppose it is actually pulsating, produced over and over again each moment, frame by frame. In this case, there can be no “natural laws” imbedded in the physical that cause its behavior. The book falls to the floor because frame by frame it is made to be perceived so.

Our reality is produced by a manifestations of consciousness from the non-3D, from the internal to the external. Therefore, any “laws” that become apparent have to be built into the creation of the frames. In other words, what we view as physical laws, that we assume are inherent, are actually conventions held in the non-physical and used to produce the frames of our reality.

It seems that scientists are still trying to explain gravity, and I’m not saying it’s not worthwhile to try to “reverse engineer” what we perceive in order to describe it accurately and mathematically in terms that we can understand. What I am saying is that greater consciousness builds the effect we call gravity into the frame by frame construction, and that we cannot assume that it is solely a phenomena of an autonomous physical Universe.

No doubt there are Universes where books fall slower or faster!

There are further implications:

The Universe could not have come into being on its own, then progress through time to its current state, only to die at some point in the future. If that is the desired perception, of course it can be built into the projection. But just because there is apparent order, does not mean the order is autonomous and inherent in the physical. It certainly would imply that order is built into the moment-by-moment creation from the non-physical.

Multiple universes with different “laws” would be expected, and we know there are uncountable physical realities. For example, why not have some where the speed of light is greater or less?

Using similar logic, evolution or anything akin to evolution cannot be made to occur solely through physical processes, much less autonomously, because the physical is INHERENTLY DISCONTINUOUS (not meaning random stopping and starting, but rhythmic inside-out regeneration). No frame is actually connected to another in the physical realm except by association and by the illusions produced by consciousness interacting with them in sequence. Therefore, whatever we label as “evolution” is not biology running on its own, but created changes in the biological construction manifested from non-3D.

Finally, given the above, it would take some creative thinking to claim that these concepts have the capacity to unite both the “hard core” religious people’s and the “hard core” scientist’s views of how the physical universe was created. IMO, it tends to fly in the face of both views. Physical creation is not happenstance, but the ongoing work of higher consciousness in some intermediary state between our state and that of All that Is.

None of this should imply that we who are experiencing the physical have no control. We do have control over our choices and intents, not to mention our reactions. Those choices and intents determine which frames of reality we experience.

(Pause)

[I had to admit I had reservations about this insight. Frank encouraged me to voice my own concerns (although he hadn’t read it yet), with the hope that anyone who reads this will chime in with help.

[One concern is that the whole concept of frame-by-frame reality brought into existence by consciousness is a model, and an analogy. It is not itself “truth”. So to what extent can that model be applied, and do the above statements stretch it well beyond its intended use, or misrepresent it in the first place?

[Second, if these aspects of physical reality are essentially as described, is there no action, no experience that is solely physical? Is everything physical part of the interactive, holographic simulation and sensing?]

As we learned in Frank’s Accessing Inner Guidance program, no sincere question will go unanswered one way or another. This morning there was the following:

(From My Joint Mind:)

So now you’ve had some insight, and it’s given you some confidence that you can believe more deeply what you resonate with intellectually. It is OK to come back later and question. Did you over-interpret? Did you go down a rabbit hole on an analogy that can’t be taken that far?

Well, yes and no. The problem is that the reason for the analogies in the first place is that there is not yet the groundwork existing in the human mind, or joint minds, that allows for a more accurate description. Further, the “real” description is still “under study” here as well. Remember the tendency to think we know everything, and we’re just trying to translate it through the density of physical existence, into minds that have limited temporal caches while they move through moments of time.

We have provided helpful analogies associated with idea that your existence in a body and the surroundings that you experience in that body are pulsating, that you are there and a moment later not there; nevertheless, everywhere at once. But admittedly, these analogies, any analogy we use, can be taken too literally, too far.

The primary point is that the idea of “discontinuity” in the creation of your physical experience enabled you to understand the impossibility of its being able be a self-standing autonomous reality, somehow functioning on its own in any way, shape or form. It functions, it exists, out of its more or less “constant” creation from the non-3D, which makes the general sense of your insights on track. You still can’t explain gravity exactly but you know it’s not just a by-product of an accidental inanimate universe.”