A Simple Explanation of Mirror Symmetry, the SYZ Conjecture, and Gravity

 An article in Quantum Magazine describes the problem with general relativity’s description of gravity:

General relativity yields the predictions of black holes and the Big Bang at the origin of our universe. Yet the “singularities” in these places, mysterious points where the curvature of space-time seems to become infinite, act as flags that signal the breakdown of general relativity. As one approaches the singularity at the center of a black hole, or the Big Bang singularity, the predictions inferred from general relativity stop providing the correct answers. A more fundamental, underlying description of space and time ought to take over. If we uncover this new layer of physics, we may be able to achieve a new understanding of space and time themselves.

I would like to offer a solution. According to the Simple Explanation cosmology, our universe is not shaped like a shuttlecock, as current theories propose, but rather like a donut—a torus. In this case, the  Big Bang occurred at the zero point singularity at the center of the cosmic torus and spread outward not as a sphere or a shuttlecock, but as an ever-expanding torus. Matter, as it emerges from the universal torus, forms itself into a steady stream of multi-dimensional toruses pushing out into the interior of the expanding 3-D donut, never reaching the edge which continues to grow beyond the reach of matter.

A newly emerging mathematical field called “mirror symmetry” demonstrates that there are an infinite number of toruses associated with every apparent object, looping themselves out of our ordinary 3-D space into six neighboring dimensions. An article printed in Quantum Magazine describes the “SYZ conjecture” this way:

 In the same way that we can now explain similarities between very different organisms through elements of a shared genetic code, mathematicians attempted to explain mirror symmetry by breaking down symplectic and complex manifolds into a shared set of basic elements called “torus fibers.”

A torus is a shape with a hole in the middle. An ordinary circle is a one-dimensional torus, and the surface of a donut is a two-dimensional torus. A torus can be of any number of dimensions. Glue lots of lower dimensional tori together in just the right way, and you can build a higher dimensional shape out of them.

To take a simple example, picture the surface of the earth. It is a two-dimensional sphere. You could also think of it as being made from many one-dimensional circles (like many lines of latitude) glued together. All these circles stuck together are a “torus fibration” of the sphere — the individual fibers woven together into a greater whole.

Here is the illustration of the concept provided by Quantum Magazine:

The Simple Explanation has always suggested that gravity is the force felt on the outside of ordinary objects due to presence of unseen toruses associated with ordinary matter. What the illustration refers to as “Point Problems” is actually the emergence of gravity. It seems to me that this symplectic geometry supplies a proof of this concept and, at the same time, resolves physic’s ongoing conundrum regarding the quantum level activity of black holes and the originating Bang.

We can imagine a very simple particle of matter as both that particle that we can see and measure and, at the same time, as a series of torus fibrations.  The fibrations at the poles with their infinite singularities originate the gravitational force, most of which occurs in alternate dimensions, but some of which “leaks” into our 3-D space. In the case of a small particle, the gravitational leakage is correspondingly small. But, when you aggregate particles into massive structures, the gravitational leakage becomes large and noticeable, as if the neighboring dimensions were trying to suck our space time into their dimensions.

The gravitational field around an object increases in proportion to the number of symplectic torus fibrations associated with the object’s ordinary matter. The reason gravity does not travel far from its originating object is because it is physically attached to the structure of the object—more precisely, to the toruses looping into neighboring dimensions. The more infinitely large singularities there are on the other side of the object’s multidimensional formula, the stronger the gravity of the object. The more aggregated ordinary matter, the more looping toruses.

In other words, gravity does not lead to black holes. Rather, massive objects produce so many toroidal fibrations of infinite singularities that the singularities themselves intrude into our 3-D space, revealing themselves and the toruses associated with them. When these singularities intrude into ordinary space, we see them in their normal symmetrical geometrical form as a single torus shape of infinite density and weight—a black hole.

Another conundrum standard physics is wrestling with has to do with “degrees of freedom.” Why, they wonder, do black holes have fewer degrees of freedom than ordinary objects? Meaning, why is their gravity only associated with the 2-dimensional outside surface of the black hole torus?

Since 2011, the Simple Explanation has suggested that gravity emanates from the exterior shell of the invisible torus wrapping around the exterior of ordinary matter.  In the case of a black hole, ordinary matter disappears into the center singularity, leaving only the shell of the symplectic torus to pull at space with its infinite gravitational shell, which is why the black hole’s gravity appears to be constrained  to the surface.

Top view of torus, with yellow arrows representing gravitational force

Side  view of torus, showing gravitational pull as well as material forces pushing out and wrapping around (white arrows)  From “Is Gravity a Toroidal Force?” 5-27-2011 Simple Explanation blog

I am grateful to Quantum Magazine for running these two recent articles on “Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces” and “Mathematicians Explore Mirror Link Between Two Geometric Worlds.”  I believe “mirror symmetry” and the “SZY conjecture” provide the math behind the Simple Explanation’s theory of gravity. In symmetrical fashion, I hope my Simple Explanation will be discovered and considered by mathematicians and physicists struggling with these issues.

Reprint from Quanta Magazine: Mathematicians Explore Mirror Link Between Two Geometric Worlds

Here's a well-written article that explains how a toroidal universe is directly related to and mirrors our ordinary perceptions of space and geometry. In a nutshell, there are an infinite number of toruses associated with all ordinary geometric shapes. These toruses (aka tori) are situated in multi-dimensional space that is not perceived by our senses, but are nonetheless mathematically related to the objects that we can perceive. 

This newly discovered mathematical symmetry between ordinary perception and toroidal geometry fits in nicely with the Simple Explanation's model of toroidal realities. At this time, the mathematicians are able to make corresponding formulae that demonstrate the symmetry of these two vastly different geometries, but they are unable to explain the how or why. It is the how and why that the Simple Explanation cosmology provides, as yet undiscovered by conventional mathematicians and physicists. 

Curiously enough, this new symmetry is called the "SYZ conjecture" after the first initials of the 3-person team who discovered it, although the word "syzgy" means "yoked together," which is itself a highly appropriate title for this symmetrical geometry. Here's the reprinted article:

Decades after physicists happened upon a stunning mathematical coincidence, researchers are getting close to understanding the link between two seemingly unrelated geometric universes.

Quanta Magazine

• Kevin Hartnett

Credit: Mike Zeng for Quanta Magazine.

In 1991, a group of physicists made an accidental discovery that flipped mathematics on its head. The physicists were trying to work out the details of string theory when they observed a strange correspondence: Numbers emerging from one kind of geometric world matched exactly with very different kinds of numbers from a very different kind of geometric world.

To physicists, the correspondence was interesting. To mathematicians, it was preposterous. They’d been studying these two geometric settings in isolation from each other for decades. To claim that they were intimately related seemed as unlikely as asserting that at the moment an astronaut jumps on the moon, some hidden connection causes his sister to jump back on earth.

“It looked totally outrageous,” said David Morrison, a mathematician at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the first mathematicians to investigate the matching numbers.

Nearly three decades later, incredulity has long since given way to revelation. The geometric relationship that the physicists first observed is the subject of one of the most flourishing fields in contemporary mathematics. The field is called mirror symmetry, in reference to the fact that these two seemingly distant mathematical universes appear somehow to reflect each other exactly. And since the observation of that first correspondence — a set of numbers on one side that matched a set of numbers on the other — mathematicians have found many more instances of an elaborate mirroring relationship: Not only do the astronaut and his sister jump together, they wave their hands and dream in unison, too.

Recently, the study of mirror symmetry has taken a new turn. After years of discovering more examples of the same underlying phenomenon, mathematicians are closing in on an explanation for why the phenomenon happens at all.

“We’re getting to the point where we’ve found the ground. There’s a landing in sight,” said Denis Auroux, a mathematician at the University of California, Berkeley.

The effort to come up with a fundamental explanation for mirror symmetry is being advanced by several groups of mathematicians. They are closing in on proofs of the central conjectures in the field. Their work is like uncovering a form of geometric DNA — a shared code that explains how two radically different geometric worlds could possibly hold traits in common.

Discovering the Mirror

What would eventually become the field of mirror symmetry began when physicists went looking for some extra dimensions. As far back as the late 1960s, physicists had tried to explain the existence of fundamental particles — electrons, photons, quarks — in terms of minuscule vibrating strings. By the 1980s, physicists understood that in order to make “string theory” work, the strings would have to exist in 10 dimensions — six more than the four-dimensional space-time we can observe. They proposed that what went on in those six unseen dimensions determined the observable properties of our physical world.

“You might have this small space that you can’t see or measure directly, but some aspects of the geometry of that space might influence real-world physics,” said Mark Gross, a mathematician at the University of Cambridge.

Eventually, they came up with potential descriptions of the six dimensions. Before getting to them, though, it’s worth thinking for a second about what it means for a space to have a geometry.

Consider a beehive and a skyscraper. Both are three-dimensional structures, but each has a very different geometry: Their layouts are different, the curvature of their exteriors is different, their interior angles are different. Similarly, string theorists came up with very different ways to imagine the missing six dimensions.

One method arose in the mathematical field of algebraic geometry. Here, mathematicians study polynomial equations — for example, x2 + y2 = 1 — by graphing their solutions (a circle, in this case). More-complicated equations can form elaborate geometric spaces. Mathematicians explore the properties of those spaces in order to better understand the original equations. Because mathematicians often use complex numbers, these spaces are commonly referred to as “complex” manifolds (or shapes).

The other type of geometric space was first constructed by thinking about physical systems such as orbiting planets. The coordinate values of each point in this kind of geometric space might specify, for example, a planet’s location and momentum. If you take all possible positions of a planet together with all possible momenta, you get the “phase space” of the planet — a geometric space whose points provide a complete description of the planet’s motion. This space has a “symplectic” structure that encodes the physical laws governing the planet’s motion.

Symplectic and complex geometries are as different from one another as beeswax and steel. They make very different kinds of spaces. Complex shapes have a very rigid structure. Think again of the circle. If you wiggle it even a little, it’s no longer a circle. It’s an entirely distinct shape that can’t be described by a polynomial equation. Symplectic geometry is much floppier. There, a circle and a circle with a little wiggle in it are almost the same.

“Algebraic geometry is a more rigid world, whereas symplectic geometry is more flexible,” said Nick Sheridan, a research fellow at Cambridge. “That’s one reason they’re such different worlds, and it’s so surprising they end up being equivalent in a deep sense.”

In the late 1980s, string theorists came up with two ways to describe the missing six dimensions: one derived from symplectic geometry, the other from complex geometry. They demonstrated that either type of space was consistent with the four-dimensional world they were trying to explain. Such a pairing is called a duality: Either one works, and there’s no test you could use to distinguish between them.

Physicists then began to explore just how far the duality extended. As they did so, they uncovered connections between the two kinds of spaces that grabbed the attention of mathematicians.

In 1991, a team of four physicists — Philip Candelas, Xenia de la Ossa, Paul Green and Linda Parkes — performed a calculation on the complex side and generated numbers that they used to make predictions about corresponding numbers on the symplectic side. The prediction had to do with the number of different types of curves that could be drawn in the six-dimensional symplectic space. Mathematicians had long struggled to count these curves. They had never considered that these counts of curves had anything to do with the calculations on complex spaces that physicists were now using in order to make their predictions.

The result was so far-fetched that at first, mathematicians didn’t know what to make of it. But then, in the months following a hastily convened meeting of physicists and mathematicians in Berkeley, California, in May 1991, the connection became irrefutable. “Eventually mathematicians worked on verifying the physicists’ predictions and realized this correspondence between these two worlds was a real thing that had gone unnoticed by mathematicians who had been studying the two sides of this mirror for centuries,” said Sheridan.

The discovery of this mirror duality meant that in short order, mathematicians studying these two kinds of geometric spaces had twice the number of tools at their disposal: Now they could use techniques from algebraic geometry to answer questions in symplectic geometry, and vice versa. They threw themselves into the work of exploiting the connection.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

At the same time, mathematicians and physicists set out to identify a common cause, or underlying geometric explanation, for the mirroring phenomenon. In the same way that we can now explain similarities between very different organisms through elements of a shared genetic code, mathematicians attempted to explain mirror symmetry by breaking down symplectic and complex manifolds into a shared set of basic elements called “torus fibers.”

A torus is a shape with a hole in the middle. An ordinary circle is a one-dimensional torus, and the surface of a donut is a two-dimensional torus. A torus can be of any number of dimensions. Glue lots of lower dimensional tori together in just the right way, and you can build a higher dimensional shape out of them.

To take a simple example, picture the surface of the earth. It is a two-dimensional sphere. You could also think of it as being made from many one-dimensional circles (like many lines of latitude) glued together. All these circles stuck together are a “torus fibration” of the sphere — the individual fibers woven together into a greater whole.

Credit: Lucy Reading-Ikkanda / Quanta Magazine.

Torus fibrations are useful in a few ways. One is that they give mathematicians a simpler way to think of complicated spaces. Just like you can construct a torus fibration of a two-dimensional sphere, you can construct a torus fibration of the six-dimensional symplectic and complex spaces that feature in mirror symmetry. Instead of circles, the fibers of those spaces are three-dimensional tori. And while a six-dimensional symplectic manifold is impossible to visualize, a three-dimensional torus is almost tangible. “That’s already a big help,” said Sheridan.

A torus fibration is useful in another way: It reduces one mirror space to a set of building blocks that you could use to build the other. In other words, you can’t necessarily understand a dog by looking at a duck, but if you break each animal into its raw genetic code, you can look for similarities that might make it seem less surprising that both organisms have eyes.

Here, in a simplified view, is how to convert a symplectic space into its complex mirror. First, perform a torus fibration on the symplectic space. You’ll get a lot of tori. Each torus has a radius (just like a circle — a one-dimensional torus — has a radius). Next, take the reciprocal of the radius of each torus. (So, a torus of radius 4 in your symplectic space becomes a torus of radius ¼ in the complex mirror.) Then use these new tori, with reciprocal radii, to build a new space.

In 1996, Andrew Strominger, Shing-Tung Yau and Eric Zaslow proposed this method as a general approach for converting any symplectic space into its complex mirror. The proposal that it’s always possible to use a torus fibration to move from one side of the mirror to the other is called the SYZ conjecture, after its originators. Proving it has become one of the foundational questions in mirror symmetry (along with the homological mirror symmetry conjecture, proposed by Maxim Kontsevich in 1994).

The SYZ conjecture is hard to prove because, in practice, this procedure of creating a torus fibration and then taking reciprocals of the radii is not easy to do. To see why, return to the example of the surface of the earth. At first it seems easy to stripe it with circles, but at the poles, your circles will have a radius of zero. And the reciprocal of zero is infinity. “If your radius equals zero, you’ve got a bit of a problem,” said Sheridan.

This same difficulty crops up in a more pronounced way when you’re trying to create a torus fibration of a six-dimensional symplectic space. There, you might have infinitely many torus fibers where part of the fiber is pinched down to a point — points with a radius of zero. Mathematicians are still trying to figure out how to work with such fibers. “This torus fibration is really the great difficulty of mirror symmetry,” said Tony Pantev, a mathematician at the University of Pennsylvania.

Put another way: The SYZ conjecture says a torus fibration is the key link between symplectic and complex spaces, but in many cases, mathematicians don’t know how to perform the translation procedure that the conjecture prescribes.

Long-Hidden Connections

Over the past 27 years, mathematicians have found hundreds of millions of examples of mirror pairs: This symplectic manifold is in a mirror relationship with that complex manifold. But when it comes to understanding why a phenomenon occurs, quantity doesn’t matter. You could assemble an ark’s worth of mammals without coming any closer to understanding where hair comes from.

“We have huge numbers of examples, like 400 million examples. It’s not that there’s a lack of examples, but nevertheless it’s still specific cases that don’t give much of a hint as to why the whole story works,” said Gross.

Mathematicians would like to find a general method of construction — a process by which you could hand them any symplectic manifold and they could hand you back its mirror. And now they believe that they’re getting close to having it. “We’re moving past the case-by-case understanding of the phenomenon,” said Auroux. “We’re trying to prove that it works in as much generality as we can.”

Mathematicians are progressing along several interrelated fronts. After decades building up the field of mirror symmetry, they’re close to understanding the main reasons the field works at all.

“I think it will be done in a reasonable time,” said Kontsevich, a mathematician at the Institute of Advanced Scientific Studies (IHES) in France and a leader in the field. “I think it will be proven really soon.”

One active area of research creates an end run around the SYZ conjecture. It attempts to port geometric information from the symplectic side to the complex side without a complete torus fibration. In 2016, Gross and his longtime collaborator Bernd Siebert of the University of Hamburg posted a general-purpose method for doing so. They are now finishing a proof to establish that the method works for all mirror spaces. “The proof has now been completely written down, but it’s a mess,” said Gross, who said that he and Siebert hope to complete it by the end of the year.

Another major open line of research seeks to establish that, assuming you have a torus fibration, which gives you mirror spaces, then all the most important relationships of mirror symmetry fall out from there. The research program is called “family Floer theory” and is being developed by Mohammed Abouzaid, a mathematician at Columbia University. In March 2017 Abouzaid posted a paper that proved this chain of logic holds for certain types of mirror pairs, but not yet all of them.

And, finally, there is work that circles back to where the field began. A trio of mathematicians — Sheridan, Sheel Ganatra and Timothy Perutz — is building on seminal ideas introduced in 1990s by Kontsevich related to his homological mirror symmetry conjecture.

Cumulatively, these three initiatives would provide a potentially complete encapsulation of the mirror phenomenon. “I think we’re getting to the point where all the big ‘why’ questions are close to being understood,” said Auroux.

Kevin Hartnett is a senior writer at Quanta Magazine covering mathematics and computer science.

A Simple Explanation of Human Evolution and Reincarnation

 Occasionally one of my readers asks me questions that prompt great discussions. I treasure those interactions because it gives me the opportunity to share my understanding of these topics with others. 

This current article presents a series of questions asked this week by one such reader in the Comments section of a piece posted ten years ago called "Who Am 'I' After Death?" If you would like to read that short article first, this would put the following questions and answers into context.

Information, Evolution, and Reincarnation

Ruan has left a new comment on your post "Who Am "I" After Death?":

Hi Cyd,

I would be very interested to understand how the Simple Explanation might inform the mechanisms or processes of UC formation and specifically human population growth:

- Why/how is there such an exponential growth in human population on earth?

Humans enjoy sex. Sex creates the opportunity for UCs to recycle back to earth. Sex is a portal to earth.

- What drives the formation of more and more human UC’s?

All creatures on earth begin their evolutionary journey as simple, basic fractals of the Universal Unit of Consciousness (Universal UC). The humans did not start out as freshly minted humans. They began as single-celled creatures resembling prokaryotes about 4  billion years ago and worked their way up.

 

Later UCs continue to begin their earthly journeys as simple, single-celled creatures or as cellular components of more complex organisms. No one comes in directly as a human, except for the Christ figure who entered our timeline as a fully formed human being. (another topic—don’t get distracted)

- Is it just the continual karma/meme loop attempting to restore balance?

There is no balance to restore. Everything is going along and unfolding in time.

- If so, what would be the formation feedback loop to restore such balance as it seems to be continually growing out of control?

The humans are the alpha creatures on earth. UCs follow the “upward and onward” rule. The most ambitious UCs eventually graduate to humans and cluster there at the end of the evolutionary line because there is nowhere else to go.

- Where do the growing numbers of human UC’s come from?

The growing number of human UCs have acquired enough information to become humans. Not all UCs become humans. Most continue on as other life forms. There are many more other life forms on the planet than there are humans.

- Are they formed anew or are they further fractal breakdowns of prior human UC’s?

The karmic computer recycles the meme bundles of all creatures back into the most perfectly appropriate fit for the newly instantiated creature. A skin cell will most likely come back in as a skin cell because its meme bundle has become so good at the job of a skin cell. A bird will most likely come back as a bird because its meme bundle has gained so much knowledge as a bird that coming back as a bird is the best fit.  The dog will probably come back as a dog, and so on.

Your Self’s governing Unit of Consciousness, the part that you think of as yourself, is really only one UC out of the countless billions of UCs that form your body and work to keep you alive. When you die, your fractal unit of consciousness lets go of your personal meme bundle of information that you have acquired over countless lifetimes. That meme bundle will be recycled back into the most appropriate body available as it attaches to a newly fertilized egg in need of a soul. Then, as the embryo continues to develop, more and more UCs attach to the newly developing body as each cellular component and each new cell appears on the scene, each in need of their own UC. It is these UCs that know how to build and sustain the body, based upon their own personal histories and meme bundles. It is likely that most of the components of your body were also previously components of your body in previous lifetimes; for them, your body is the most perfectly appropriate place to reincarnate. This may explain the how and why of birth defects, as the cells reincarnate meme-based trauma from previous lifetimes. It also explains innate talents and abilities that children are born with.

It seems to me that when longstanding eco-systems are destroyed, the UCs of the displaced creatures are reincarnated elsewhere, wherever the karmic computer finds the most appropriate incoming body. Surely, displaced apes are able to graduate to human bodies and societies. For example, as a bonobo-inhabited forest is destroyed, the bonobo meme bundles attach to incoming human beings and that self then continues as a human. As wolf habitats are destroyed, the wolves reincarnate as dogs. As wild grasses are replaced by crops, the plants’ UCs reincarnate as rice and corn.

Every living thing on earth is composed of countless fractals of the Universal UC. That is their ultimate home. These earthly incarnations are transitory. There is no tragic loss of consciousness at the universal scale.

- What motivates/initiates/drives the point of inception of a new human UC?

The parents have sexual encounters with each other. Conception is a natural consequence of sex.

- Is it just the seemingly free will/choice of the “parents” of a human UC?

Yes.  Parents choose to have sex. Conception is out of their control, as it occurs at a cellular level.

- Is it just the natural forces of karma/memes causing some form of attraction forces?

I had an archetypal dream about 50 years ago that explains how and when meme bundles reattach themselves to UCs prior to reincarnating. You can read the Simple Explanation blog article here.

Here’s a snippet from the dream that tells, in metaphorical language how we pick up our meme bundles and dress our  UCs in them prior to reincarnating. Read the original article for the interpretation.

There is a young woman in the hut, sitting in a rocking chair nursing a baby, and they look a lot like the Madonna and Child. There is a box sitting on a crude, handmade table in the hut. I cross the room to look into the box and recognize my clothes are in there. I suddenly notice I am naked and I take my roughly hand-loomed tunic out of the box and put it on. Yes, this is mine. I turn and exit the hut. Rather than exiting into the village, the door out of the hut puts me directly back into the long, bright corridor.  I am near the end of the corridor now. I open and enter another door, and unexpectedly find myself outside the building, back out in the night air. 

 

To me, this dream implies that my UC was self-aware between lives. The setting was archetypal—mother; father; child; dwelling; corridors—all universal types of memes that apply equally to anyone. I was naked because my meme shroud of particulars had dropped away. When I looked into the box I recognized my meme shroud and was immediately inclined to put it on. The minute I reacquired my meme bundle, I found myself in the corridor and ejected back to earth.

- Is there a higher being/level/organization/force (e.g. “God” or “Higher Beings” etc.) driving/influencing/manipulating human UC formation or is the process just left up to itself?

Yes, there is the karmic computer, wielded by the Universal Unit of Consciousness. Or, if you prefer to consider this mechanism in religious terms, please visit my Gnostic Gospel blog and/or read The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated.

- How would all the above compare for non-human UC’s (i.e. the natural world of all other life forms on earth)?

The Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything applies equally to all units of consciousness throughout the universe.

- From our scientific understanding of the natural world, there seems to be more direct/clear answers to the above, but the human UC’s seems to be exceptions or have a different set of rules?

Not necessarily, other than as explained above.  However, I happen to believe in the God Above God as described in my book, The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated.  I find the Gnostic view to be just as explanatory and more personally comforting for this existence I am now living. In the Gnostic Gospel, the metaversal consciousness is identified as The Father. The Universal Unit of Consciousness is The Son. The toroidal shape that surrounds our universe is the Waters, and the zero point field that emanates UCs into our space-time continuum is the birth canal of Sophia--The Mother of 10,000 Things. In Sophism, the earth is the fallen body of Logos, ruled by the Demiurge, mistakenly identified as “God,” by most religions.

- Is there a point of transition/progression from/between non-human UC’s and human UC’s?

Yes. It is based upon acquisition of information (memes) and readiness to perform as a human.

- What might be the rules or mechanisms of such transition, whether up or down or back or forth?

Units of consciousness operate under the Simple Explanation’s Golden Rule—All units of consciousness reach out to others like themselves to hold hands and work together to build things they cannot build alone. Skin cells hold hands to become the organ called skin. Organs hold hands to build organisms. Animals hold hands to build families and support societies. As this is a fractal, it works for all levels of instantiation.

When my housecat was stolen away and eaten by coyotes, her governing UC as the cat named Odot went out of this dimension until she was able to reincarnate as a kitten again. The UCs that made up her body were consumed by the coyote. Once inside the coyote, the UCs of the now non-functioning organs also departed to this dimension. But I think it’s possible that the UCs attached to the cat’s sub-cellular components carried on life as part of the coyote. This would be an example of lateral transfer of UCs from one creature to another, because the UCs of the organelles of a cat know how to carry on as organelles of a coyote. To them, it doesn’t much matter whose organelles they are, as long as they are still eukaryotes.

Perhaps when you eat a carrot, the UCs of the carrot are promoted to human component UCs and are able to reincarnate along with your human bundle of UCs.

- Would the above imply that there must also be similar (UC) life comparable to that on earth (i.e. “aliens”) elsewhere in the universe?

Not necessarily. Since the laws of the Simple Explanation are universal, everything described above can apply to any location within our universe.  On the other hand, it may be the case that our earth is a particular site of activity—a kind of consciousness laboratory that would make other locations redundant.  We’ll find out if/when the UFOs  land. 

We have come to the end of the questions. I hope this makes sense to you. You certainly asked the right questions!

Coloring Book for Body and Soul--Sacred Plants

 You can't be afraid if you choose love.

Hello friends. 

I hope you are you doing well during these strange days.

I would like to share with you the work of my artistic friend and neighbour, Britta Shier, because I believe that her spiritual coloring books are a very simple way to stay mentally healthy in these demanding times.

Coloring has a very relaxing and stress-relieving effect on us and provides clarity. It is a perfect way to ground and reconnect with yourself, identifying in an ever so subtle way your needs, desires, solutions, and your own personal truth. 

What I enjoy about Britta's coloring books is that she guides her readers in a gentle manner to use their perception and discernment while coloring the illustrations that you choose as an expression of your soul speaking to you.

Her latest coloring book is on sacred plants, featuring the Bach Flowers Essences-- very well known in Europe, especially Germany, Austria and England--as a way to harmonize imbalances energetically on a soul level. There are 38 flowers essences that are covered in the coloring book, revealing their truths and who they are suited for, whatever situation you are dealing with or life presents to you.

Here are a couple of examples of pages from the Sacred Plants book that have been colored by Britta. You will of course choose your own colors and techniques.

Star of Bethlehem consoles shock and trauma.  Chestnut Bud allows learning.

I have worked with Britta on several books already, making sure that they are technically fine and ready to meet the world through publication. We both hope you will enjoy and grow from this peaceful activity.

If you believe you would enjoy this combination of coloring and soulful exploration, please click here to have a look at her book.

Here is a link to a video I shot of the interior of the book, showing all of the illustrations as Britta turns the pages. Click here to view...

Onward and upward!

cyd

Cyd Presents A Simple Explanation on Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio

Cyd was the sole guest on a two hour radio program recently. In this interview, Cyd explains the Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything in a wide-ranging conversation with two stellar Gnostic gentlemen, Miguel Conner and his wingman Vance. Enjoy!

Here is most of the episode on YouTube. Click here to hear.

You should also be able to find this program on most online radio platforms. The show was broadcasted on November 17, 2020, by Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio. This episode is called:

A Fractal Model of the Conscious Universe

As always, I invite your comments and will personally reply.

A Simple Explanation of Gnostic Christianity and the Role of the Redeemer

The moment the Son was formed, he was no longer alone. For not only the Son, but the ALL arose at once. The ALL immediately appeared as the offspring of the Son, because the Son could not help himself from bringing others into existence, even as he was brought into existence by his Father. The Son and the Father are One, and the Father's creative Holy Spirit flows through the Son. With the birth of the ALL, the Son became a Father as well.

Welcome to the Simple Explanation blog. If you are at all curious about Gnostic Christianity, I have just written and posted an article explaining the role of Christ in Gnosticism. Please pop on over to my Gnostic blog and take a read by clicking here. This article is suitable for any Christian or Gnostic, particularly if you doubt the truth of the other side.

Here are the first couple of paragraphs from the article:

Gnosticism is the forerunner of the modern Christian faith. As such, a better understanding of the figure of the Christ is essential to understanding both Gnosticism and Christianity. The cosmology outlined below was well-known to Jesus and his original followers, but was cut out of Christianity about 1,700 years ago by the Nicene Council at the urging of the Pope and the Roman Emperor. Fortunately, a trove of 13 ancient Gnostic texts was discovered in 1945, dating back to the origins of Christianity. This collection is known as the Nag Hammadi codices.

Because this theology was subtracted from orthodox Christianity, many of the ideas of Gnostic cosmology sound odd and unfamiliar to modern church-goers. Some of the ideas even sound heretical at first glance, due to their unfamiliarity. Yet the theology contained in these early scriptures make sense of so many puzzling aspects of Christian faith that they must be reexamined. So, if you will bear with me, I will explain in very simple terms the key points of Gnostic belief. I am confident that once you understand Gnostic Christianity, you will better understand your relationship with God.

According to Gnostic cosmology as laid out in the Nag Hammadi, we humans and all other forms of life on earth, from bacteria and eukaryotes on up, are the "fruit" of the Pleroma and Logos. We Second Order Powers find ourselves locked in a never-ending battle for dominion over the earth with forces that were generated as a result of the Fall. Due to the law of mutual combat, we have forgotten our origin in the Fullness and our mission to bring love and harmony to creation, and have instead taken on many of the characteristics of the shadows of the Deficiency.

To finish the article, click here.

Building a Better World Through Tolerance and Love--"Live and Let Live" Allows All to Thrive

Two years ago I first posted this article about the role of free speech in a democracy. I am reprinting it yet again because the message is needed now more than ever. "Live and Let Live" is a meme that is absolutely central to a functioning democracy. Every American citizen is entitled by the law of this land to hold and express their opinions. It is only through exchange of information and assistance that the big jobs get done. Read on for the why's and how's:

The Simple Explanation's theory of memes uses the term "meme" to stand for a belief or a tidbit of knowledge. These memes are passed around to our friends like trading cards--most of our close friends hold the same meme cards we do; that's why they are our friends. The more memes you hold in common with someone else, the more you like them. The opposite is also true--we have a difficult time relating to people who hold a different set of memes.

Here is the bottom-line of the previous Apocalyptic Visions article:

The Simple Explanation suggests that "live and let live" would be a great meta-meme for everyone to adopt. If we could appreciate the fact that each of us has a unique perspective, then perhaps we could allow each other to hold the memes that make the most sense for our lives. This is my meme chord; that is your meme chord. If I don't like your meme chord then I can talk it over with you and see if we can move our meme chords closer to one another in agreement. If neither of us is able or willing to swap memes with the other, then so be it. Either accept the other person, memes and all, or move on. Find someone else who more closely agrees with your memes. There is enough room in this world for each of us to hold our own chords, but only if "live and let live" is an overarching meme.

We are now in the midst of a social epidemic of intolerance. Intolerance is the opposite of "live and let live." When we are intolerant of others' memes, we are declaring that our memes are correct and their memes are wrong. And then we take it a step further--we refuse to "tolerate" the others' memes. We throw up resistance, we throw up roadblocks, we close our ears and refuse to listen to the other. We do not merely disagree, as reasonable people may do from time to time. 

When we are intolerant, we look for ways to force others to abandon their memes and adopt ours. We shout them down because we feel we are shouting the right memes and theirs are not only wrong, they are evil and have no right to be heard. And once you declare the other people as "evil," it is no longer a disagreement in good faith, but a fight for the soul. "God is on our side, therefore we can do whatever it takes to crush the opposition," is a dangerous and usually delusional meme to hold. And if it entitles the holder to disregard rule of law, then it is not a democratic ideal and it has no place in American politics.

Once words can no longer be exchanged, frustration builds and violence follows. This is what we are seeing now in the U.S.  Free exchange of memes has been thwarted because of intolerance, and intolerance has led to violence. 

Exchange of ideas is the key. You needn't agree with the other person, but you must hear them out. Because, once you agree to sit and exchange ideas and concerns, whether or not you adopt the other's ideas, the very act of hearing each other out creates a shared space that acts as a balm to soothe both your soul and theirs. When you are too angry, frustrated, or afraid to listen to the other, you perpetuate the intolerance that leads to violence. This intolerance is not helpful. 

 Maxine Waters calls followers to adopt intolerance of others' right to disagree. Her call to action in favor of intolerance has now become the norm on the Left. [cnn photo credit]

We hear a lot about the importance of "diversity" nowadays in America. True diversity can only thrive if we allow each other to "live and let live." Diversity allows people to hold their own opinions and beliefs without incurring punishment from either the powerful or the mobs.

When you seek to silence those with whom you disagree, you are not encouraging diversity; you are actually partaking in fascism. Fascism advocates the forced suppression of those who express opposing views. Disagreement, on the other hand, is not forced suppression, it is merely disagreement.  Shouting others down when they have the floor, shunning those with whom you disagree, refusing service in a restaurant to paying customers who voted for a different candidate--this is not the side of the angels, folks. This is not helping us come together to get the job done.

Groupthink Is Counter to Democracy. Censorship Divides.

 Two years ago I wrote this article called "A Simple Explanation of Groupthink." Since that time, groupthink has become the standard of the land. I am reprinting this article with further commentary. Please come to your senses before it's too late. Wake up!

My friend. Consider this article an invitation to take a deep breath and relax a bit. I am writing to you because my heart is saddened by your current level of fear, anger, and confusion. There is a primal level of angst in the land, with ever-deepening divisions. Our political meme chords are hardening into a primitive form of brutish tribalism through the force of rhetoric and propaganda. If we aren't careful, violence will increasingly replace vitriol. My friend, this is not the American way. 

*In the two years since this article was posted, riots, burning, and looting have raged across America. Divisions have widened to the point where neighbors can no longer speak to one another. Social media censorship has ensured that people can not read each other's posts, preventing us from widening our range of thinking and stopping us from discussing important social and political events with one another.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." [Charles Mackay, 1841, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"]

Negative effects of groupthink on teamwork, Dale Carnegie Institute

Let's talk about "groupthink" for a minute. Groupthink is when individuals stop thinking for themselves and adopt memes that are held and propagated by the group as a whole. Grouppthink occurs, for example, when you read an article or a facebook post and believe everything in it, no matter how outrageous, and then endorse it with a thumbs-up and send it on to your friends. Contrast that with coming across the same information and weighing it rationally, using due diligence to verify claims and consider opposing arguments, and then endorsing or rejecting the memes, irrespective of who said what. Not nearly as much fun, is it?

Groupthink memes rely upon mass delusion for energy; and the end result is never good. Oftentimes, groupthink memes would be literally unthinkable if it were not for the influence of the group over personal will. Mob violence is a perfect example of groupthink--no one in their right mind would pick up a stone and throw it at their neighbor for no reason whatsoever... were it not for the fact that twenty other neighbors were already throwing stones at the poor soul.

The particular groupthink I'm concerned with in this article has to do with your enthusiastic endorsement of political and economic philosophies you know nothing about in your effort to speak truth to power. Have you actually studied history? Do you understand the effect of various political and economic memes on societies in the past or halfway around the world? Do you have a working knowledge of economics? I think it's safe to say that few of my friends have studied these subjects in depth. (Of course, out there in the larger webiverse I know a few of you have, so don't take offense.) All I'm saying is now that social media and the web have given voice and influence to any fool with a cellphone, it's more important than ever to do your research. 

*The strategy currently adopted by social media is not to give voice and influence to "any fool with a cellphone" as I originally put it, but to only give some fools with cellphones voice and influence in order to slant the coverage of current events. Over the past couple of years social media has decided to actively block everyone the elite at the top disagree with, including yours truly on occasion. Even mainstream media openly blocks and slants coverage of the news to ensure compliance with elitist goals. If I were to chat with my neighbors about current events and politics, at least half of them would have never even heard the topics I'm raising. 

Now, let's imagine our country is a large organization that needs to function well in order to survive and prosper so that we all may reap the benefits. Surely, that is a goal we all share.

*We all share the desire to be safe in our homes, to prosper at work, to freely assemble with others, and to speak our minds without being hit on the head with a brick.

Consider the following advice for overcoming groupthink, from Dale Carnegie Institute's article, "The Curse of Teamwork: Groupthink":

• Create an organizational environment where individuals can freely voice their ideas, challenges, and concerns. Individuals must feel comfortable with taking interpersonal risks, admitting hesitations, and challenging one-another. Absent an inclination to avoid conflict, a team can easily discuss and debate different perspectives.
• Think about the right information required to make sound decisions. Consider the strongest counter-argument to every idea.
• Do not suppress disagreements or dominate the dissenters. Carefully examine the reasons and implications of alternate viewpoints.

Now think about this: have you really stopped to consider the other side of the political debate? Have you really tried to see why half of your neighbors disagree with your position? Can you explain their memes in non-inflammatory language? In other words, do you understand what the adversary is saying and the facts behind their claims? If not, why not?  (One reason why not, as we all know by now, is due to the ideological filters social media platforms put on posts to keep us sorted into tidy categories. Another, self-selected, filter is the one-sided news channel you choose to watch.)

My brother, Dr. Bill Puett, used to share the following advice about critical thinking with his departing Philosophy students. Sounds a lot like Carnegie's anti-groupthink lesson.

"Other than your living a loving and compassionate life, I wish for you more than anything that you become autonomous. Be fully informed on all important matters and apply critical thinking before making choices. Regard no one as an authority, challenge all beliefs, but listen to others before reaching decisions. Before offering criticism, know an opposing position so well that you can argue it better than the opponent proposing it. In so doing, you may risk your own position. ..."

I think it is time for us to settle down and return to reason. Emotion, particularly fear and righteous indignation, is not getting us anywhere except upset. A steady diet of inflammatory rhetoric is ruining our faith in the nation. And it's not doing any favors for your health or mental well-being, either. Step One is stop feeding the fear. 

*Hate and anger cannot build; they can only destroy. Hatred tears down and rips apart; love builds and brings together. Do not expect that building a better America will rise from the ashes of hatred; it will not. Hatred brings ruination, less security, less prosperity, and ever increasing divisions that cannot heal. Look inside yourself--are you operating out of Hatred?

"We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them." [Charles Mackay, 1841, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"]

Remember the Simple Explanation's Golden Rule:

Our job is to reach out to others with love, information, and assistance to build something greater than ourselves.

***************

Cyd Ropp has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from The University of Memphis. Her specialty is meta-level analysis of ideological divides and their ultimate resolution.

 Buy the Simple Explanation book by clicking here.