Intelligent Infinity Defined

[Anders]

Explaining reality as a coin with two sides still makes it something having parts. So I want to come back to the idea of reality as the difference between infinity and finity.

And with the new idea that infinity is a potential. As Ra said: "There is unity. This unity is all that there is. This unity has a potential and kinetic. The potential is intelligent infinity." (27.5)

So to make it consistent with what Ra said, I can change my idea to: Reality is the unity of infinity and finity. It's the same meaning as 'difference' in this context since both unity and difference are relations. And this single relation is all there is. And from this relation there are new relations from the one relation itself to infinity and finity, and from those new relations result and so on in an endless and completely interconnected web of relations. This web of relations expands forever which produces time and the manifested reality.

In graph theory a relation is a line between points. And when there are relations from the relations themselves it's called a hypergraph.

"In mathematics, and more specifically in graph theory, a graph is a structure amounting to a set of objects in which some pairs of the objects are in some sense "related". The objects correspond to mathematical abstractions called vertices (also called nodes or points) and each of the related pairs of vertices is called an edge (also called link or line).[1]" - Wikipedia

"In mathematics, a hypergraph is a generalization of a graph in which an edge can join any number of vertices. In contrast, in an ordinary graph, an edge connects exactly two vertices." - Wikipedia

Interestingly, in the Wolfram Physics Project they use a hypergraph as their fundamental model of physical reality. I'm a huge fan of the Wolfram Physics Project and even though their model quickly becomes extremely complicated and over my head, their foundation can be represented by a hypergraph consisting of only lines and points.

"At the lowest level, the structures on which our models operate consist of collections of relations between identical (but labeled) discrete elements. One convenient way to represent such structures is as graphs (or, in general, hypergraphs).

- https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical...structure/

[Anders]

I first had the impression that the Wolfram Physics Model was too limited since it was, I thought, about a simple algorithm. Recently I heard Stephen Wolfram talking about the simultaneous evolution of all possible rules! Rule here means how the graph (web of relations) can expand.

A subset of all possible rules represents infinite intelligence. And all those rules connect to each other since infinity is only one potential, not many. This means that the Wolfram model can be made compatible with the Law of One concept of Intelligent Infinity.

But who selects which rules to apply? The answer is that the rules are "selected by" Intelligent Infinity, or more correctly those rules are Intelligent Infinity, so the "selection" already timelessly exists. And the rules become activated along with the expansion of the web of relations.

Just to illustrate the expansion of the web again, the first image starts with only one relation (line), the unity Ra mentioned:

And the web expands into more and more relations:

Since the web contains all possible relations, the rules are simply subgraphs of the web, meaning instead of taking all points a subset of all points represents a rule. (The actual expansion of the web grows faster than in the pictures, but the principle is the same [complete graph]).

[Anders]

Oh! I just realized that since the collection of rules for Intelligent Infinity is a whole unity it explains how the web of relations can expand step by step and yet there is a consistent past all the time. The rules of Intelligent Infinity are all connected into a single collection, where each rule is related to all other rules.

A free will choice for example can be seen as applying a certain rule at a certain point in time. And the choice is thereby more than just some mechanical cause and effect from the past. The same with creative activity which can in this way produce emergent properties, meaning novelty and new creations not manifested before. It's still deterministic though since only one rule at each step is the one "chosen" by Intelligent Infinity, but not deterministic like in some clunky and mechanical Laplace style.

[Louisabell]

Hi Anders, I had a question for you. In your travels, have you come across anything pertaining to intelligent infinity having a plenum quality? Was is it? Is this what is "tapped" for work (intelligent energy) on opening the gateway? Curious on your thoughts.

82.6 Questioner: That’s what I thought you might say. Am I correct in assuming that at the beginning of this octave, out of what I would call a void of space, the seeds of an infinite number of galactic systems such as the Milky Way Galaxy appeared and grew in spiral fashion simultaneously?

Ra: I am Ra. There are duple areas of potential confusion. Firstly, let us say that the basic concept is reasonably well-stated. Now we address the confusion. The nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. However, in your modes of perception you would perhaps more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward. The second confusion lies in the term, ‘void’. We would substitute the noun, ‘plenum’.

82.10 Questioner: Why does this partaking in the original thought have a gradient radially outward? That’s the way I understand your statement.

Ra: I am Ra. This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.

[Anders]

Hi Anders, I had a question for you. In your travels, have you come across anything pertaining to intelligent infinity having a plenum quality? Was is it? Is this what is "tapped" for work (intelligent energy) on opening the gateway? Curious on your thoughts.

82.6 Questioner: That’s what I thought you might say. Am I correct in assuming that at the beginning of this octave, out of what I would call a void of space, the seeds of an infinite number of galactic systems such as the Milky Way Galaxy appeared and grew in spiral fashion simultaneously?

Ra: I am Ra. There are duple areas of potential confusion. Firstly, let us say that the basic concept is reasonably well-stated. Now we address the confusion. The nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. However, in your modes of perception you would perhaps more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward. The second confusion lies in the term, ‘void’. We would substitute the noun, ‘plenum’.

82.10 Questioner: Why does this partaking in the original thought have a gradient radially outward? That’s the way I understand your statement.

Ra: I am Ra. This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.

I looked up the word plenum earlier and it means fullness. Buddhism talks about nothingness, although I don't know if that's the exact correct translation.

I think of reality as Indra's net expanding. The usual description of Indra's net is that it contains jewels/pearls reflecting each other infinitely so they are fully interconnected. In my model I simply replace the jewels by points. And points are empty! So that's the emptiness in Buddhism. Yet all the infinite relations are still there, that's the plenum as I see it.

Indra's net is infinite. And my new approach is to treat infinity as a potential. So Indra's net has a potential that is tapped which produces time, space, energy, matter and life. Indra's net is expanding all the time endlessly since the potential will never run out.

[Anders]

I came to think of how the model of reality they use in the Wolfram Physics Project is exactly correct! They talk about advanced mathematical concepts and I heard the term 'equivalence class' and looked it up:

"In mathematics, when the elements of some set S have a notion of equivalence (formalized as an equivalence relation) defined on them, then one may naturally split the set S into equivalence classes. These equivalence classes are constructed so that elements a and b belong to the same equivalence class if, and only if, they are equivalent." - Wikipedia

If I understand it correctly, the basic concept is easy to grasp. If a bag contains 5 apples and 3 oranges, then the apples form one equivalence class and the oranges form another equivalence class. When the equality condition is: "same kind of fruit".

With another equivalence condition "is a fruit" all the apples and oranges together form one equivalence class.

It can be applied to the expanding Indra's net. And rules determine how subsets (collections) of points expand into a new larger subsets of points. And with the equality condition for the rules: "is Intelligent Infinity" it results in an equivalence class which represents reality.

[tadeus]

Interesting sentence about infinity i read yesterday.

Now, one could easily suppose that were it the case that in one bright, shining day, all were able to return fulsome love back to the Creator, that the Creator would stand fully exposed to itself, and would know itself finally in Its completeness. However, it has been our experience, (and once again we would like to iterate that our experience is limited), that no knowing ever even begins to exhaust the mystery of the Creator, or the mystery of the creation. It is truly an inexhaustible source. And that inexhaustibility is something which you may sense in a small way in your experiences of love for your fellow creatures. For when you love your beloved, when you love your wife, when you love your husband, when you love your children, when you love your friends, when you love your groups, when you love your planet, you do so in such a way that it does not diminish that which is love. In fact, strangely, it seems to augment that which is love, and once again we face a paradox or a mystery, because a mystery which is so infinite and so completely mysterious, which seemed to be something that could not become more itself, that is to say, more mysterious, by being loved, and yet, it seems to us that this is exactly what happens. It seems to us that the creation does become more, and that the concept of infinity very strangely, incomprehensibly, is susceptible of becoming more. And more than that, it is of such a nature intrinsically that the orientation to more is part of its very constitution, part of its make-up.

[Anders]

Interesting sentence about infinity i read yesterday.

Now, one could easily suppose that were it the case that in one bright, shining day, all were able to return fulsome love back to the Creator, that the Creator would stand fully exposed to itself, and would know itself finally in Its completeness. However, it has been our experience, (and once again we would like to iterate that our experience is limited), that no knowing ever even begins to exhaust the mystery of the Creator, or the mystery of the creation. It is truly an inexhaustible source. And that inexhaustibility is something which you may sense in a small way in your experiences of love for your fellow creatures. For when you love your beloved, when you love your wife, when you love your husband, when you love your children, when you love your friends, when you love your groups, when you love your planet, you do so in such a way that it does not diminish that which is love. In fact, strangely, it seems to augment that which is love, and once again we face a paradox or a mystery, because a mystery which is so infinite and so completely mysterious, which seemed to be something that could not become more itself, that is to say, more mysterious, by being loved, and yet, it seems to us that this is exactly what happens. It seems to us that the creation does become more, and that the concept of infinity very strangely, incomprehensibly, is susceptible of becoming more. And more than that, it is of such a nature intrinsically that the orientation to more is part of its very constitution, part of its make-up.

Excellent! I have forgotten to check what Q'uo has said about Intelligent Infinity. "It is truly an inexhaustible source." Q'uo said. And that infinity can always become more. That fits with the idea that infinity is a potential. An inexhaustible potential. As for it being a mystery I agree in the sense that the creation is infinitely advanced and can't be pinned down other than as limited models and as direct experience of reality.

[Anders]

Infinity as a potential is something, and finity is also something and reality as the difference between infinity and finity is therefore a duality, a polarity. And there is no polarity as Ra says:

"Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.]

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?" - Law of One 1.7

Therefore I change my definition to: reality is the difference between infinity as a potential and nothing. The result is the same as before, with a single relation giving rise to an ever expanding web of relations. Something in relation to nothing is not a duality/polarity, at least not in the usual sense of the meaning of the term polarity.

[flofrog]

By far one of my favorite quotes from Ra, thank you Anders..

[Anders]

To make the connection between Intelligent Infinity and The Wolfram Physics Project more complete the rules transcend and include each other in an expanding evolution.

Intelligent Infinity is an equivalence class of rules generating an expanding subgraph as a total order. In plain language it can be illustrated as a growing web of relations representing all the past. That's the Akashic Records growing all the time and all past information is "stored" since the growing web is indestructible. All past moments in time are chained together (total order). Future moments manifest as the web expands.

Ra describes the one creation as a mystery:

"Questioner: I was thinking last night that if I were in the place of Ra at this time, the first distortion of the Law of One might cause me to mix some erroneous data with the true information that I was transmitting to this group. Do you do this?

Ra: I am Ra. We do not intentionally do this. However, there will be confusion. The errors which have occurred have occurred due to the occasional variation in the vibrational complex of this instrument due to its ingestion of a chemical substance. It is not our intent in this particular project to create erroneous information but to express in the confining ambiance of your language system the feeling of the infinite mystery of the one creation in its infinite and intelligent unity." - Law of One 18.1

So where is the mystery in my simple connection with the Wolfram Physics Project? The answer is that future moments are unknown. Not even Ra can fully predict the future. The future is more than just a simple cause and effect chain from past to future. Causality goes in both directions from past and future. The total amount of manifested information always increases in a way that can't be captured by only looking at the past and present information.

[KaliSouth]

I like to theorize about the fundamental nature of reality. Ra has in the Law of One the concept of intelligent infinity, such as in this question and answer:

"Questioner: [The question was lost because the questioner was sitting too far from the tape recorder to be recorded.]

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

May we enunciate this law in more detail?" - Law of One 1.7

The infinite cannot be many, Ra said, and that's logical since something many can be counted. How can you count infinity? Ra also uses terms like Law of Confusion, distortion and illusion. Why? In my opinion because to avoiding revealing some information prematurely to humanity. For example free will is very important in third density, yet I believe free will is an illusion! That's why it's appropriate to use terms such as illusion and distortion.

In one of the Law of One sessions they used a Bible opened to John chapter 1.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:1-3

The Word is the same as intelligent infinity! That's my initial definition of what intelligent infinity is. A word is changeless, and that's why free will is an illusion. Brahman is changeless, and it says in the Bible: "I the Lord do not change." (Malachi 3)

It is interesting that you have chosen this quote from the Bible. Reading it now, I realize the similarity to the Hindu concept of Lord Brahma -seem as the first creative force of God (Krishna/Vishnu). It seems like "the Word" = "Lord Brahma" if we break down the clues.

[Anders]

@KaliSouth Brahman as I read about it on Wikipedia is very much like the Word in the Bible: "Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes."

Lord Brahma I found is a part of the trinity of Brahman:

"Three of the most significant forms of Brahman are Brahma , Shiva and Vishnu. These three gods are key aspects of Brahman, the Ultimate Reality." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z4...revision/3

I'm not sure how to separate Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, but since they form the trinity of Brahman they can be seen as the Intelligent Infinity "which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes".

[Anders]

Amazing. Morgue said (if I understood it correctly) in this recent live stream that infinity is a potential and it's only one such potential. That's precisely the same as what I have figured out. It's amazing I think because the ordinary mainstream view is not like that at all. In math they have many infinities, even infinities with different "sizes". So it's a radical and I believe true perspective.

[Anders]

Morgue's model is based on ontological mathematics. I found this:

"What about infinity? Infinity is the flip side of zero. Since it’s derived
from a resultant, it’s not itself a thing but is also a resultant. “Infinity”
simply means that, unless there is a sufficient reason to prevent it, there is
no limit on the number of things that can be brought together to create a net
resultant of zero. Zero is the resultant, infinity is the scale of that resultant,
and that scale is unbounded unless there is a reason why it should be
bounded. (In fact, there is possible reason: we live in universe that has a
highest possible number because the universe is based on the circle and the
circle always returns to itself in a finite number of steps if it is defined by a
“flowing point”: a point that has a tiny magnitude. We simply divide the
circumference by the 1-D flowing point, and we always get a finite number,
albeit immensely large. You can’t get true division by zero.)

Infinity is an abstraction. It has no ontological status. Ontologically, it
must be replaced by “Myriad”, the largest possible ontological number.
" - Ontological Mathematics: How to
Create the Universe by Mike Hockney

That seems to be the same as infinity as a potential. The "highest possible number" in the universe in my model is always increasing! Other than that it's consistent with my current view. The "flowing point" I have to learn more about than that it's a moving point around the same unit circle that Morgue has talked about.

[Anders]

Ontological mathematics is very interesting as it says something similar to how Ra said that everything is thought. What I haven't found yet is how the universe is supposed to evolve. In the Law of One I found this explanation about an expansion from a center.

"Questioner: That’s what I thought you might say. Am I correct in assuming that at the beginning of this octave, out of what I would call a void of space, the seeds of an infinite number of galactic systems such as the Milky Way Galaxy appeared and grew in spiral fashion simultaneously?

Ra: I am Ra. There are duple areas of potential confusion. Firstly, let us say that the basic concept is reasonably well-stated. Now we address the confusion. The nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. However, in your modes of perception you would perhaps more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward. The second confusion lies in the term, ‘void’. We would substitute the noun, ‘plenum’." - Law of One 82.6

Ra's explanation matches my model of an ever growing web of relations (plenum) from a center. Maybe ontological mathematics has something similar and I will look into it some more to see if I can find anything about an expansion from a center.

Another similarity is that ontological mathematics describes reality as a plenum, similar to Ra in the Law of One:

"Nature makes no leaps. No discontinuous actions take place. There are no logical gaps. Reality is a logical plenum." - Ontological Mathematics: How to Create the Universe by Mike Hockney

[flofrog]

Very cool Anders, thank you. Love the final quote

[Anders]

Ra said that everything is thought which means that also Intelligent Infinity is thought. But then how is the physical universe created from thought?

"Questioner: Could you tell me the difference between space/time and time/space?

Ra: I am Ra. Using your words, the difference is that between the visible and invisible or the physical and metaphysical. Using mathematical terms, as does the one you call Larson, the difference is that between s/t and t/s." - Law of One 41.20

And in ontological mathematical terms:

"As soon as sines and cosines are paired non-orthogonally, they can no
longer be said to exist in the mental, dimensionless domain of pure
frequencies. They have now entered the spacetime domain, hence have
“physical” rather than “mental” signatures. To put it another way, they are
no longer maximally time dilated and length contracted, hence now have
dimensionality." - Ontological Mathematics: How to Create the Universe by Mike Hockney

Unfortunately in ontological mathematics there is the idea of the Omega Point as something that repeats over and over again. In my model The Omega Point is Intelligent Infinity and is endless. And I reject the idea of relativity in the form of time dilation and length contraction. But I like the idea of a dimensionless domain. This allows me to squeeze all the past into the single now moment. And the past information is increasing all the time which produces the arrow of time and the process of evolution.

[Anders]

We can see evidence of Intelligent Infinity simply by observing how physical reality works. The current scientific view seems way too mechanistic as an explanation of the larger cohesive picture. And I noticed in the previous quote from Ra I posted that the name Larson was mentioned. And I found:

"20.6 Questioner: Speaking of the rapid change that occurred in the physical vehicle; the change from second to third density: this, you said, occurred in approximately a generation and a half. Body hair was lost and there were structural changes.

I am aware of the physics of Dewey B. Larson, who states that all is motion or vibration. Am I correct in assuming that the basic vibration, which makes up the physical world as we experience it, changes, thus creating a different set of parameters, shall I say, in this short period of time between density changes allowing for the new type of vehicle? Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

20.7 Questioner: Just as a sideline, a side question here: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex Dewey is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know of as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory." - Law of One 20:6-7

And indeed, I found this video with a lecture by Dewey B. Larson where he talks about how he found through studying the periodic table that atoms are better explained by motions than by subatomic particles! And Larson also talked about flaws in the current (at the time, they haven't changed much since) theories in science. My interpretation is that science still is way too clunky, limited and perhaps even very much wrong about many things, to explain or try to explain away Intelligent Infinity.

[Anders]

I now realized that infinity as a potential is a convenient way of solving the problems with 'completed' infinities like Zeno's paradoxes and the continuum hypothesis problem.

And it also means that time progresses in steps instead of as infinitely smooth (infinitely many points between every point). One tricky thing with my model is that the "frame rate" for reality is actually infinite. Because to have a finite time period larger than zero would require some external clocking mechanism, and therefore can't be a part of reality, or an internal clock delay which again would require some additional time flowing to produce the delay.

But how can the frame rate of reality be infinite if infinity is only a potential? I need to modify my model and say that infinity is zero time interval. And the 'frames' of reality start with only one relation that expands explosively and infinitely fast into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... N, where N is the number of frames up to the present moment.

Notice that even with infinite clock speed N will never reach infinity since there is no largest frame number. And as a hack, hopefully correct, I can set the physical time interval for our universe to the Planck time as a constant and the age of our universe as a finite number of Plack time steps dependent on N.

[Anders]

An idea that came to me now is that each octave has its own Planck time. And as before in my model the octaves form expanding levels in a multiverse tree where each universe is a white hole of a black hole in a parent universe.

The idea is that the number of time frames at the Big Bang is S and when the first black hole forms it's at frame number T. And the difference P = T - S in relation to N (see my previous post) determines the Planck time. Inside the black holes new universes are born and they will get their own values for S and T.

In practice this means that if we travel into a newer universe (higher octave) or into an older universe (lower octave) in the multiverse tree, then we will still experience time as flowing in the same way since the values of S and T result in the same Planck constant relative to each octave.

[Anders]

Regarding octaves and Intelligent Infinity, Ra says this: "You will recall that we went into some detail as to how those not oriented towards seeking service for others yet, nevertheless, found and could use the gateway to intelligent infinity. This is true at all densities in our octave. We cannot speak for those above us, as you would say, in the next quantum or octave of beingness." (7.17)

The idea of each universe being a white hole of a black hole in a parent universe is however not a new idea:

"Like part of a cosmic Russian doll, our universe may be nested inside a black hole that is itself part of a larger universe.

In turn, all the black holes found so far in our universe—from the microscopic to the supermassive—may be doorways into alternate realities.

According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes." - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...-wormholes

The article mentions our parent universe as being larger, which is true, yet in my model also the Planck length is the same constant in each universe relative to the octave. So if we travel into our parent universe it will be roughly the same size as our universe when we enter it. The same when moving into higher octaves into black holes in our universe, which relative to our universe are smaller while inside the higher octave universes their sizes are about the same as our universe. The size of each universe expands in my model but determined by how much new matter is absorbed by the parent black hole. If the black hole remains stable in mass so does the size of the universe inside it.

[flofrog]

Regarding octaves and Intelligent Infinity, Ra says this: "You will recall that we went into some detail as to how those not oriented towards seeking service for others yet, nevertheless, found and could use the gateway to intelligent infinity. This is true at all densities in our octave. We cannot speak for those above us, as you would say, in the next quantum or octave of beingness." (7.17)

The idea of each universe being a white hole of a black hole in a parent universe is however not a new idea:

"Like part of a cosmic Russian doll, our universe may be nested inside a black hole that is itself part of a larger universe.

In turn, all the black holes found so far in our universe—from the microscopic to the supermassive—may be doorways into alternate realities.

According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes." - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...-wormholes

The article mentions our parent universe as being larger, which is true, yet in my model also the Planck length is the same constant in each universe relative to the octave. So if we travel into our parent universe it will be roughly the same size as our universe when we enter it. The same when moving into higher octaves into black holes in our universe, which relative to our universe are smaller while inside the higher octave universes their sizes are about the same as our universe. The size of each universe expands in my model but determined by how much new matter is absorbed by the parent black hole. If the black hole remains stable in mass so does the size of the universe inside it.

I love this Anders…
It reminds me one of Micheal Talbot’s books, 
The Holographic Universe which he published in 1991 where he was talking of black holes as parallel universes. A lot of it was above my head but I just knew, somehow, he was just so right on that one.
He published before ‘Your Past Lives. A Reincarnarion Handbook’, in 87, ‘Beyond the Quantum’ in 86 and ‘Mysticism and the new Physics’ in 80. I dint read the 87 one but all the others. Great reading.

He died at 38, quite young.