Erasing the “Para” in Paranormal

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, failed to debunk quantum mechanics in their quest to prove “material realism.” The silver bullet that killed their monster, as well as material realism, was the proof of nonlocality gained via Alain Aspect’s famous experiment which showed that the measurement of one polarization-correlated photon affects its partner without any signaling. Physicists who interpret this result as evidence for nonlocal consciousness are correct. However, physicists who further interpret it as the result of a collapsing quantum wave are incorrect; the effect is actually the result of the collapse (negation of) Time by Awareness. See our post: “Cancelling Heisenberg’s Uncertainty.” 

Without Time, there is no speed-of-light limitation, no electronic signaling in space-time, no material obstacles, no wait. Without Time there can be no Space, without Space there is no distance, and without distance there is no here-to-there communication. That is the nature of Awareness working within the sub-particle-filled dimensions of Consciousness (see our post: “Multi-dimensionality and Turbulence Theory”).

A correct grasp of quantum reality joins together physics and psychology. However, erroneous conceptualizing related to quantum nonlocality impedes human evolution. At present, some quantum physicists realize that Dr. Carl Jung was right when he said it was probable that: “…psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing.” But they do not realize that Dr. Jung was wrong when he referred to synchronicity—meaningful coincidence—as being “acausal.” There is cause behind every synchronicity, and the source of such causality is the same as the source for all other causality: Consciousness. Jung used the term “collective unconscious,” which can also be described as: the one shared well of Consciousness. 

All abilities labeled “paranormal” are rooted in the tri-dimensional workings of normal Consciousness. Clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy, remote viewing, out-of-body experiences, dowsing, psychometry, and others are all aspects of the same “extrasensory power.” Some quantum physicists recognize the connection of psychic experiences to quantum mechanics, but their flawed thinking in terms of acausally-collapsing-quantum-waves leads them to believe that, for example, there can be no intentional transfer of instrumental information between participants in remote viewing experiments, that any significance of correlation can only be ascertained after-the-fact.

Not so. 

Many years ago, even before Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s book, Psychic Exploration, was published, I was the subject of a series of experiments that involved the nonphysical, intentional, remote gathering of precise data for verification by third-parties. In one of many tests, I was tasked to mentally travel to the home of a person unknown to me, at an address not provided (“go to his home”), and upon arrival I was to describe his house. Although I did that, and also added a description of his car, one tester remained skeptical. He asked me to read the car’s license plate. I did so, and they wrote it down. Since no one present knew the man’s plate number, they called his home in my presence and asked for it. The match was 100%. I call that proof of “intentional transfer of instrumental information”—from my nonphysical self to my physical self and then to my examiners.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Erasing the “Para” in Paranormal”

  1. Stark Raven Says:

    As a psychologist I am interested to know whether you have conducted any recent experiments, whether those experiments used subjects other than yourself, and whether the experiments were performed under the purview of professional psychologists.

  2. PluribusOne Says:

    Yes, over the years there have been many more experiments conducted with various individuals, some of whom have been professional psychologists. One of the more recent experiments was done with a (verified) clinical psychologist who claimed to be a skilled remote viewer. We communicated entirely via telephone and the internet. My initial test was to have her describe my office, both the interior and also the positioning of the room with respect to the four cardinal points of the globe. The subject’s description was highly detailed and completely accurate despite the fact that my office is of a one-of-a-kind custom design and very unusual. No images of my office had ever been taken or published, and the subject lives thousands of miles away.

    In a separate experiment, I went to a town about thirty miles from my office, a location I did not disclose, and I called the subject by cell phone. At that moment, I was looking at a residence of uncommon architecture in a neighborhood having uncommon and distinctive attributes. I asked the subject to describe what I was looking at. The subject not only described the house but also the number of steps to the front door, the unconventional entrance and enclosed porch design, and the street number. This is certainly a perfect example of “intentional transfer of instrumental information between participants in a remote viewing experiment.”

    In some experiments I attempted to trick the subject/viewer with respect to the nature or location of a target and they still provided accurate descriptions. This may seem unbelievable or impossible, and yet the ability to remote view is real. I believe that anyone can learn to remote view. Many people inadvertently discover their ability as the result of a spontaneous experience that supports their survival in a life-threatening or otherwise emotionally-charged situation. They may interpret it as a visitation by an angel or as God showing them something and, in effect, saying: “You need to see this…”

  3. Marius de Jess Says:

    You admit that there has always been something, yes? no?

    That something for you is not God, but it is the source from which all things in existence come forth that are distinct from it (that thing that has always existed and is always existing.

    So, all you have to do is to give that thing a name.

    Theists give that thing the name of God, the creator of everything with a beginning, in addition to having always existed and is always existing.

    Now, we just have to come to agree on what is the difference between your concept of that thing and theists’ concept of God as the thing that has always existed and is always existing, and is the creator of everything with a beginning.

    Text me, [withheld by PluribusOne™ to maintain privacy], when you have decided for us to determine what is that thing for you and how it is different from God among theists.

    Marius de Jess

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:


    Thank you for inquiring. I am not a theist, nor am I an atheist. Those concepts express a human ego-devised religious/cultural/tribal-centric paradigm and a limited intellectual perspective.

    My answer to your question cannot be adequately stated in a few words. However, in an inadequate nutshell, the truth is that anything we can conceive of and name cannot express the true nature of that which people desire to concisely encode as “God.” My best label for It is: Source Energy Awareness (SEA), which is no-thing—the un-manifest origin of the manifested One which is All.

    Jesus said: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,” and “I am the alpha and the omega,” but no denomination of Christianity understands what he meant. Some disciples apparently understood, or he would have given up entirely and gone off to a mountaintop. Through attunement in spirit to the teachings of Jesus, as opposed to teachings about doctrinal interpretation of those teachings—creeds/dogma—I see myself as a true Christian although I do not call myself that because that term, like “God,” has lost whatever light it once held.

    Elsewhere in this blog are posts that present and discuss my philosophy, or philo-religion, of NoetiTaoism™ which is the label given to the articulation of my moments of whole-brain “cosmic consciousness”—and resultant non-theological metanoia—and of my right-brain effort to apprehend the truth of all things as reflected in my more left-brained Theory of Everything. You might read: “NoetiTaoism™—Questions and Answers,” “Jesus Christ—Humanist,” “Nothing,” and “Total Eclipse of Monistic Idealism” found in the Spirituality & Religion section on the home page, or use the search feature.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s