How does “IT” work?

“All the mass-energy that makes up our reality is the result of a gradient density of information between different scales, generating and animating the structures of our universe. This approach identifies the information network structure that generates gravity and the mass of all atomic nuclei — the source of the mass-energy that makes up matter.”

Nassim Haramein.




 Future reference – related research:


  1. I really wish others would refer to their ideas as ideas and not objective claims of reality.

    “All the mass-energy that makes up our reality” triggers a red flag. Unfortunately, such assertions are embedded in our language. Many times I slip and utter such claims.

    His claim is an interesting proposed perspective. What kind of ontological/epistemological meta reality does the claim assume? In my view, imaginative mathematics is a family of languages for representing creations, which can be “fictions”, “imaginations”.

    I view this is “mathematical poetry”.



    1. The wording is an artefact of the English language, which is semantically least able to render approximate truth claims in any real detail. However, my long term action research indicates that the perspective being offered has foundations in ontological ‘reality’ – as such. This of course is an impossible claim to justify to any other than one’s self. I share simply because I have found a working mind on this planet which is fully committed to engaging these ideas and presenting them to the world in a way that it can recognise. Beyond that, the implications of Harrameins research are far reaching and yet to be fully appreciated by most.



  2. I hear you, Glisten. “Harrameins research” is significant and must be attended to.

    My meta-meta concern is about taking any proposed, contemporary perspective AS IF it had ontological relevance (a conceptual scheme I question). Is it possible to adapt a process which acknowledges continuing “mystery”, that we are “perpetual children learning”? We may have “access” to “ultimates”, but lack the competencies for accurate interpretation.

    I admit that I have deeply adapted a “relativistic” perspective at the “bottom”. There will never be discovered a “final, concrete reality”. I don’t want to be locked into a process (over existential) ontology [ontology, itself is a questionable perspective). At this stage I prefer a complementarity between existential and process ontologies.

    I admit I really don’t know what I am writing about. I appear to have a deep sensitivity to ASSERTIONS of UNIVERSALITY. Can we create a discourse without such assertions?

    I feel a deep complementarity of realities. After “complementarity” is accepted, one can engage fully in dialog in context with a specific frame – yet, at the same time – accept it as relative.



  3. The improbability of incoherence renders every event/moment immanent. Transitional phase, ‘gradient density’, inception/perception energies are subject to multi-phase perturbations. Systematic expositions exist in and at all points. It is at once the Mandala, the Deity, the Mantra. And in the dissolution of notions of ordinary time/space/consciousness That may occur. That Art Thou.



your thoughts?

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