The next series of entries represent a small subset of the overall project I’m working on, which could include putting together a research and development group. I’m interested in gathering, consolidating, and analyzing research within the ITC community, a future project. But there is also a need to go outside the community, which is the subject of these next essays. Cross-disciplinary work enhances creativity and innovation.
There are many topics and disciplines to explore. In this series, I draw on the academic community of people who have researched and published on the relationship of consciousness and physics, or what some call paraphysics. Some of their theories extend to a “Theory of Everything” that includes consciousness and the paranormal. In the best cases, they also discuss the afterlife and ITC, the focus of this website. (Actually, my focus is an expanded version of ITC that I call TMT, which you can read about in my earlier essays.).
I considered selected authors’ works so prodigious that I included more than one of their papers in the analysis. For example, papers by Jon Klimo and Chris Hardy. The cryptography entry is an outlier, as it was not based on any published papers. It was just the answer to a prompt, introducing another discipline into the mix.
Many of these academics draw on quantum theory. I link to the original papers, where you will see how broad and thorough their writing is. To do them justice in such a simple exercise is futile. To comprehend their ideas and evidence, I encourage the reader to explore the source documents.
My goal is to see if there might be a way to extend their findings to interdimensional communication and related phenomena. To imagine such applications, I asked it as a hypothetical question in my prompts (ie., “Imagine that non-physical beings exist. How would you engineer a device to communicate with them based on the concepts in this paper.”)
This was also an experiment with the great toy of 2023 – Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) using Large Language Models, aka Chatbots. The most famous of the models is Chat GPT which I used to summarize and prompt these academic papers. I also used Merlin and ChatDoc occasionally, so you will see multiple summaries and queries at times.
Being somewhat selective, I chose 17 papers to examine, but realize that there are numerous other theories in this genre. I might add a few more later.
After completing the initial task, I added these documents: A collection of the paper summaries; a collection of the engineering summaries; consolidation of the engineering models; a table roughly comparing the theories themselves. I will next lend my personal analysis to the mix, based on generated content.
There’s a metaphor that goes like this. Six blind men touch an elephant in different places. The first touches his trunk and says an elephant is a snake. The second touches the elephant’s side and says it’s a wall. The third touches the tusk and says it’s a spear. The fourth touches the tail and says it’s a rope. The fifth touches the leg and says the elephant is a tree. The sixth man touches the elephant’s ear and says it’s a fan. They are all right and all wrong! The elephant is all of those things.
That’s how I view these theories. They, and more to come, give a partial picture. I’m looking for an overarching theory that unifies them all, and then apply it to the topic that is closest to my heart and is the theme of this blog – providing technical universal access to the multiple realities that make up our universe, including the “afterlife” domain, and knowledge of how it’s all put together.
This may not be the right ontological approach, but at least it lends literacy to the pursuit, either revealing essential truth, the relativistic nature of things, or both. Some of these authors were engaged in a similar pursuit and may have already struck gold. But without a dive that is both deep and comprehensive, we’ll never know. The technical journey might turn out to be more straightforward, but I’m not counting on it.
Chatbots are brilliant at what they do, but they are not human. So my first disclaimer is that summaries and query answers are limited to the models, and to the skill of the prompter (me). In the future, I might delve more deeply into this protocol with better prompts. More importantly, I want to read and analyze the papers without the AI crutch. It will be interesting to see how the AI answers are similar, different, supportive, or contradictory to the human touch.
Although I respect these thinkers and their models, I am not claiming they are the keys to understanding the phenomena I’m examining. In an earlier entry, I looked at other top-level theories that could be relevant.
The engineering in these query answers is quite imaginative. Some of the technologies are expensive, impractical, possibly irrelevant, or do not yet exist. But that is the point – to inspire readers to develop such tools, or otherwise find creative inspiration in the quest, thinking outside the box. That is why I am sharing this website, even in its unfinished state.
These pages are a work in progress. Consider them raw material, rough drafts, or workflows rather than finished products. They are not masterpieces of copy editing, but I hope they are sufficiently readable.
If this website is still open for comment, please feel free to contribute.