Philip K Dick spectrum - Physics of the Mysterious

Dana Beal dana at
Sun Nov 30 19:19:41 EST 2003

From: slipstream at

Physics of the Mysterious

   I. Introduction

  I am going to talk about Time Travel. But, before I get to that most 
mysterious of subjects, there is some groundwork that must be dealt 
with first. This will be a series of notes that will appear at this 
place on the Web, one section at a time. I will add new stuff as 
often as I can, so that, little by little, there will be more and 
more until we get into the fun part, so please be patient. It is not 
a subject that can be rushed. The point is that I have little time. I 
have my work, I have my research, and also I am looking for avenues 
that will enable me to change from research in "recognized areas" to 
the "leading edge new problems" - and this involves seeking out those 
who are willing to finance the work necessary to develop completely 
new science and technologies. Thus, I simply cannot devote to these 
pages as much time as I would otherwise like. Nevertheless I feel it 
as a kind of an imperative, or duty, to work on this project - even 
if the tempo of new material arriving on the net will be slow and 

The purpose of writing these notes and making them available through 
the Web is twofold:

  1) I want to provide the non-expert Reader with first- hand 
information about the present state and possible future development 
of theoretical physics - mainly in relation to the material provided 
in the Cassiopaean sessions , but also to make comments on 
information from other "mysterious" sources - all through the ages.

2) I want to get as much feed-back as possible concerning all kinds 
of problems and questions discussed in these notes. I will appreciate 
all kinds of information, sharing of ideas or just receiving 
questions concerning topics that are not sufficiently (or not at all) 
discussed here.

  A little about myself: I am a theoretical/mathematical physicist. 
For those interested in credentials - my data , curriculum vitae and 
list of publications are available through the Internet, at this 
website and others.

  This being said I owe you, dear Reader, a warning and an 
explanation. I am considered to be AN EXPERT, but many of my views 
are not shared by other experts. I believe that my mind is more open 
than the minds of many of my colleagues. On the other hand, some of 
these colleagues believe that my mind is TOO open. So I have to hide 
from them many of my beliefs and not speak to them about a lot of 
things that I know. In this way I can publish papers in mainstream 
journals, speak at conferences, organize conferences and have a 
pretty good reputation. But to preserve this reputation I need to be 
very careful - just making a hint here and there that what I do 
publish is not all that I would like to tell....

I think I really need to tell you these things so that you will NOT 
get an erroneous idea that all physicists are of the same opinion. 
They are not. University physics is pretty conservative - which is 
not a bad attitude at all. We do need to be conservative - this 
distinguishes science from poetry and daydreaming. But, being too 
conservative has, in the past, been a great barrier and hindrance to 
scientific revolutions. If being conservative and "scientific" was 
the only correct approach, then we would have solved all the 
mysteries of our existence in the past several hundred years of the 
"age of science!" The truth is: we are only at the beginning.

But, perhaps I AM too open minded.... Perhaps my colleagues are right 
in being skeptical about anything that is not "established science." 
I try to keep an open mind about THAT, as well!

What I want do on these pages is be open-minded and yet conservative. 
That is, all I write here will be presented in a moderate and 
conservative mode. Moreover, as you can see for yourself on my other 
web pages, I am of the opinion that physics must be always based on 
mathematics - the only reliable tool and a truly universal language. 
Without math we can talk about many things - but we are just TALKING. 
It is not yet science! And even if I believe that the domain of 
physics needs to be essentially extended, that it has to connect with 
- or even embrace - biology and psychology - that it has to become 
much less "physical" - it does not mean it needs to become less 

But still, no amount of math can take the place of the right 
inspiration. The study of physics consists in peeling away the layers 
of the outside appearances of things to reveal their hidden nature 
and meaning, and very often this inner nature is so deep and hidden 
that only mathematics can describe it. But, if there is no 
inspiration as to what might be the objective of the search, the 
peeling away process might end up being rather like an onion - when 
the layers are all gone, there is no longer anything there!

The new physics needs to be based on math - to an even greater degree 
than the old physics. It will be a new math, sure, but it will a 
rigorous math - a math of equations and algorithms and probabilities 
- a nonlinear math of complex structures and of transitions between 
these structures. The math of today is difficult and abstract, and 
the math of tomorrow might be yet more difficult to grasp, even if 
our computers will be able to do more and more of the abstract work 
for us. On the other hand, the new math may be incredibly simple and 
elegant - this could be the reason it has eluded the understanding of 
physicists today - that the most abstract of ideas are concealed 
behind a veil of utter, simple logic. This is why professional 
training is so important: it gives us tools, it teaches us the rigor 
of abstract thinking, it teaches us the logic of proving assertions, 
and it shows us the limits and uncertainties of mathematics itself. 
As we know from Bertrand Russell and Kurt Goedel: math has its 
paradoxes too!

   2. Physics today.

  Let me, first of all, share with you my views on the state of 
physics today. More on this subject can be found in my lecture 
Bioelectronics As Seen by a Theoretical Physicist. Even though this 
lecture was given at a bioelectronics symposium more than ten years 
ago, nothing really has changed since that time, and part of the 
predictions given there have already come true, so I am only 
repeating here much of what I said then. (I plan to post this entire 
lecture as soon as the translation is complete.)

Physics is what physicists do. And physicists do what they are paid 
to do. This is one of the reasons why so many of the brightest minds 
work on a short-time-scale reward basis, doing what is fashionable at 
a given time. This is the main reason why there is no progress at all 
in the fundamental areas. The clash between Einstein's relativity 
theories - which describe classical gravity at macro-scales, and 
Bohr-Dirac-Heisenberg-Schroedinger quantum theories, providing 
phenomenology of micro-phenomena, - this clash is today even more 
dark and scary than it was seventy years ago.

There is no real progress.

Quantum Theory is supposed to be the greatest invention in science 
since the beginning of the study of deeper realities. The greatest 
success of Quantum Theory is considered to be Quantum Field Theory, 
such as the theory of a quantized electromagnetic field (photons) in 
interaction with quantized charged matter (electrons). The problem 
is, this theory is mathematically inconsistent. It involves wishful 
thinking rather than rigorous science! The only quantum field 
theories (in four dimensional space-time) that ARE free of 
contradictions, are so-called trivial ones; that is theories that 
describe particles that do not interact at all. These theories are 
mathematical exercises involving particles that are "dead," that will 
never form atoms. It seems to be that a universe that is governed by 
quantum field theories that are free of contradictions would be a 
dead universe, a universe of no interaction.

One can build a non-trivial quantum field theory, which may even 
describe something real or interesting, but then it would necessarily 
contradict Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity; it would be a 
non-relativistic one.

This is the dilemma. If you want to have both Quantum Field Theory 
AND Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then you've got a problem.

Thus, nontrivial relativistic quantum field theories in four 
space-time dimensions are divergent - they lead to infinities, and 
are mathematically inconsistent. Searching for the cure in fancy 
formal math (supersymmetry, superstrings, quantum groups) just does 
not work. New - fundamentally new - ideas are needed. Quantum theory 
is not understood at all - everyone is trying to "cook" by "changing" 
the recipes to suit the ingredients they have on hand, and this very 
often results in "Rock Soup."

Part of the present-day problem is that Niels Bohr succeeded in 
molding the minds of so many theoretical physicists into the "no need 
to understand" mode and this has done a great disservice to the 
science, the new generations of scientists, and most of all, to 
humanity. In this day and time, it could be said, that we more 
desperately need to understand the Order of the Universe than ever 

Yet there is hope. There are areas, even in the "recognized physics" 
where NEW is still possible. And, it is possible because more and 
more physicists understand how little they understand about quantum 
theory. Physicists are realizing, little by little, that even in such 
established areas as macroscopic electrodynamics there are problems 
that need major new rethinking: railguns, exploding wire arcs, 
sonoluminescence, present us with problems that are not easily 
answered within the standard paradigm and need, perhaps, a major 
re-thinking of the foundations.

Some of the problems are that we do not really understand the physics 
of conductivity and superconductivity. We realize that macroscopic 
quantum effects are more common than we ever thought. Sure, it is 
evident to everyone who goes to Circuit City that technology is 
progressing pretty fast in these areas; but the same cannot be said 
about our understanding!

What about gravitational physics?

Many of the important questions are still unanswered. The old Mach 
principle is still a subject of serious debate and we do not know 
what to do with singularities like black holes. They badly need 
quantum physics, but, once again, quantum physics becomes 
inconsistent when married with gravity. So we really do not know 
where we are.

We do not know if gravity is a fundamental force or, perhaps, it is a 
collective and composite phenomenon. Some physicists want to explain 
electromagnetism in terms of gravity. Others want to derive gravity 
from electromagnetism.

There is a lot of talk about antigravity or gravity shielding at the 
most fundamental levels and perhaps "antigravity" or gravity 
shielding is a real effect? No one can agree, and little progress is 
being made except to disagree. You would be amazed at the battles 
that rage in the ivory towers of academia!

We do not even know (at least not from textbooks or physics journals) 
if antimatter is attracted or repelled by matter. Perhaps tachyons - 
particles travelling faster than light - do exist? Perhaps space-time 
can have causal loops and telephoning into the past is possible? 
Perhaps quantum tunneling phenomena involves sending information 
faster than light? Perhaps magnetic monopoles exist and play an 
important role in biological systems? Or, perhaps, the fifth 
dimension is more than just a mathematical device of providing a 
unified description of gravity and electromagnetism?

Who knows?

All these topics ARE discussed in professional journals, but with no 
conclusion, no agreement, no cigar.

Too much research is in "safe" areas - producing nothing but 
"papers." The truth is that, Physicists, to make their living, must 
produce papers, must be "quoted;" and so they quote each other; 
colleagues quote colleagues and produce graduate students who quote 
their masters, after which they become masters, quoting each other, 
and producing graduate students who quote them, in an endless cycle 
of life in the aforementioned ivory towers.

And this is not something unique in physics. Not at all! It is true 
in other fields of study, too. But in physics the results are really 
bad: there has been no apparent progress in our understanding of 
Nature for seventy long years.... And nature REALLY needs to be 
understood, because things are getting a little out of hand out there 
in the "real" world.

Well, perhaps it is not THAT bad!

We all know that there is a lot of progress in certain areas, 
especially in technology based on quantum physics. We also know that 
certain areas are so sensitive that any progress therein is so 
closely monitored that it hardly finds its way to journal pages. And 
also, it is the physicists who have more open minds than others that 
move to new, interdisciplinary, areas of research, putting pieces of 
the puzzle together, blazing some isolated new trails for others. So, 
perhaps, after all, it is not THAT bad?

Well, I think it is bad enough. But, as Bertrand Russell pointed out ,

"Meantime, the world in which we exist has other aims. But it will 
pass away, burned up in the fire of its hot passions: and from its 
ashes will spring a new and younger world, full of fresh hope, with 
the light of morning in its eyes."

   3. "We are you in the future"

  This is what "they" declare : that "they" - The Cassiopaeans - 6th 
density Unified Thought Form Beings of Light - are us in the future. 
What a bizarre concept. Or is it?

Is that possible? Can such a statement find a place in accepted 
theories? Or it is in an evident contradiction with everything that 
we - that is, physicists - know about Nature and its laws?

Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether existence in a pure 
state of consciousness is possible, is travelling in time possible, 
even if only in theory? Is sending and receiving information from the 
future or sending information into the past allowed by our present 
theories of relativity and quantum mechanics? If information can be 
sent, does this also imply that physical matter can be "sent," via 
some sort of TransDimensional Remolecularization? And if so what are 
the laws, what are the restrictions? What are the means?

Well, frankly speaking, we do not know, but we may have a clue. Kurt 
Goedel, after he became famous for his work on foundations of 
mathematics, went on to study the Einstein general theory of 
relativity and made an important contribution to physics: he 
discovered a class of otherwise reasonable cosmological solutions of 
Einstein equations - except for one point: they contained causal 

At first these Causal Loops were dismissed by relativists as being 
"too crazy". The arguments against these model universes even became 
rather personal, commenting upon the state of mind of the inventor! 
(A not terribly unusual phenomenon in the heated debates within 
so-called "ivory towers" of academia.)

A "Causal Loop" means the same thing as "Time Loop." It can be 
described as going into the future and ending up where you started at 
the original time and place. It is called "Causal" because, in 
Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Time is a relative concept and 
different observers can experience Time differently, so the term 
"causal" is used to avoid using the term "time."

But, little by little, it was realized that causal - or Time - loops 
CAN appear in other solutions of Einstein equations as well - usually 
they correspond to some kind of "rotation" of the universe.

Causal loops make time travel not only possible, but probable. But 
then, causal loops lead to unacceptable logical paradoxes, and 
physics does not like such paradoxes at all - they are a serious 

But, the subject of communicating with the past or receiving 
information from the future IS being discussed in physics even in 
terms of the flat, not-curved-at-all space-time of Lorentz and 
Minkowski. Hypothetical faster-than-light particles - tachyons - can 
serve as the communication means. They make an "anti-telephone" - a 
telephone into the past - possible.

But do tachyons exist? Or CAN they exist?

Well, that is still a question that has not been answered 
definitively for some.

And, the truth is that paradoxes must never be ignored. They always 
indicate that some important lesson is to be learned; that some 
essential improvement or change is necessary. The same holds true for 
the paradoxes involved in the idea of receiving information from the 
future. We cannot simply go back into Saturday and tell ourselves the 
winning lottery numbers of Sunday. If this were possible, then it 
should also be possible for some future, future, self to tell a 
future self NOT to tell! Thus we have a paradox: we, in the future, 
have intervened into the past making our communication from the 
future impossible!

A paradox: if we communicated, we have not communicated, and if we do 
not communicate, then we have communicated! Impossible in a linear, 
non-branching universe!

Is there a possible escape from the paradox, an escape that leaves a 
door open, even if only a little - for our anti-telephone?

Indeed, there is, and not just one, but several ways out.

First of all - the evident paradox disappears if we admit the 
possibility that the communication channels are inherently noisy; 
that is a normal situation when we deal with quantum phenomena. So, 
if the communication into the past is a quantum effect - we are saved 
from evident paradoxes. Quantum Theory can be useful!

Sending a signal into the past, we are never 100% sure if the message 
will be delivered without distortion. And conversely, receiving info 
from the future we are never 100% sure if this comes from an 
authentic broadcast or is a spontaneous and random creation of the 
receiving end. If this is the case, and if certain quantitative, 
information - that is, theoretic relations between receiving and 
transmitting ends are secured to hold - then there are no more 
paradoxes even with reasonably efficient information channels.

In other words: there CAN be broadcasts from the future to the past, 
but there will be few "receivers," and of those few, even fewer that 
are properly tuned. And even those that are properly tuned may be 
subject to "static." Even if there is no static, those receivers that 
can receive pure information will experience the static of 
"non-belief" and distortion after the fact.

There is also another aspect of such an information transfer which is 
that the probabilities involved are connected with a CHOICE EVENT; 
with the choosing of one among many possible futures.

It may happen that branching of the universe corresponds to each such 
event. Branching of the universe into an infinite tree of decisions 
has been discussed within quantum measurement theory - it even has 
the name of "Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory."

Two of the well-known physicists who consider the many worlds 
interpretation more than just an exercise in theorizing are John 
Archibald Wheeler and David Deutsch and you may wish to obtain their 
books for a deeper understanding.

The Many Worlds Interpretation has one serious weakness: it has no 
built in algorithm for providing the timing of the branchings. Thus 
it is a certain framework rather than a complete theory.

There is, however, a theory that fills in this gap in the Many Worlds 
Interpretation - and this theory I know quite well, and in fact I 
know it better than most others for the simple reason that I 
developed it in collaboration with Philippe Blanchard (University of 
Bielefeld ) in the last six or so years as an integral part of the 
Quantum Future Project. It is called Event Enhanced Quantum Theory 
(EEQT for short notation). (A complete list of references and much 
more info on this subject can be found on my "Quantum Future " 
project page).

The fact that our generally accepted theories of the present do not 
prevent us from thinking that time travel is, perhaps, possible, does 
not necessarily imply that we do know how to build the time machine!

On the other hand, it is perhaps possible that the time machine 
already exists and is in use, even if we do not understand the 
principle of its work, because it goes much too far beyond our 
present theoretical and conceptual framework. It is also possible 
that some of the machines we think are serving a totally different 
purpose do, in fact, act as time machines. Many things are possible...

Now, back to superluminal communication, or "channelling" in general 
and the Cassiopaeans in particular: the fact that sending information 
into the past is possible does not necessarily imply that any 
information that pretends to be sent from the future is such indeed!

But, if we generally accept that extraterrestrial life is possible, 
and we use all of our knowledge and resources to search for life 
beyond our Earth, then we also need to include the understanding that 
receiving information from the future is equally possible. With this 
perspective, science should search for any traces of such information.

But, what kind of information channels are to be monitored in search 
of such broadcasts? What kind of antenna arrays do we need? How must 
we direct them into a particular "future time"? Say, into the year 
3000? Or 30,000? Or 300,001?

My answer is: nothing like that is necessary. All that we need we 
already have, namely OUR MINDS.

And indeed, assuming that the knowledge and technology of the future 
is (or CAN BE) much more advanced than ours, then it is only natural 
that any broadcast from the future will be addressed directly into 
the mind.

Even today there are techniques of acting directly on our minds. They 
are not always used for our benefit; nevertheless they do exist. But 
if communications from the future are possible, why don't we receive 
these broadcasts on a daily basis? If our minds can serve as 
receivers, then why aren't we all aware of the transmissions?

This is a legitimate question and we will address it somewhat later 
as there is a more urgent topic to be addressed first: what PHYSICS 
has to say about MIND?

If You, the Reader, have your own point of view that supports or 
contradicts the view presented below - please let me know it. I do 
welcome any comment or suggestion.... So, feel free and e-mail me at: 
ark at .

   4. Mind and Physics

Isn't "mind" a domain of philosophy, psychology and cognitive sciences?

Or, is mind just a function of a brain; and isn't the brain just a 
computing device?

There is no easy answer. There are a lot of interesting theories; a 
lot of controversy; a lot of "true believers" in this or that idea. 
There are "new age" physics books, Penrose bestsellers, Sarfatti's 
site on the internet, mail-lists and newsgroups discussing the 
subjects of MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS and so on.

I want to give here my own small perspective, based on my own 
research, my own experiences, my own conclusions.

First of all: why does it seem to me that I am qualified to discuss 
the subject?

The answer is pretty simple. The fact is, all my work on EEQT was 
directed toward one end: to make Quantum Theory as OBJECTIVE as 
possible; to eliminate any trace of "observer" from its (that is: 
Quantum Theory) dictionary; to formulate - reformulate - Quantum 
Theory in such a way that "observers" and "observables" and even 
"measurement" would be replaced by precise and totally objective 
concepts. I wanted to eliminate "Mind" entirely from the equation.

By doing this I was really pursuing John Bell's programme - a 
programme that he did not have enough time to carry out to a 
conclusion due to his untimely death - a crusade to discover an exact 
mathematical formulation describing both micro and macro phenomena so 
as to produce either a real synthesis of quantum and relativity 
theories, or to be able to construct a viable alternative to one or 
both of them. You might want to have a look at his published book 
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Theory, and also his papers 
Against Measurement and Towards exact quantum mechanics.

Our theory, EEQT, was presented at the conference "Quantum Theory 
Without Observers", held in Bielefeld, Germany, in July 1995. (Those 
of you who wish to go deeper can read a review of this subject from 
the point of view of Bohmian Mechanics: the recent paper by Sheldon 
Goldstein at Rutgers.) Our presentation was accompanied by a computer 
simulation of a run of a "measuring device" coupled to an individual 
quantum system. Our Event Generating Algorithm produced a sequence of 
"clicks" that were accompanying "quantum jumps" - without any 
intervention of an "observer". Moreover, the standard "quantum 
measurement postulates" can be derived from EEQT's "objective 
algorithm." In our papers - see the bibliography - we have stressed 
repeatedly that "mind" and "consciousness" and "observer" are not 
needed by quantum theory. Quantum physics can do without these 

So, you see, I AM qualified to discuss the problems of mind and 
consciousness and their importance to physics - because I spent years 
trying to get rid of them!

Did I succeed?

Yes and no. My views started to shift after having an extensive 
discussion with H.P. Stapp. (You can easily find links to some of his 
papers available through the internet via the Sarfatti link , but you 
can also try to read his other papers, especially his most recent 
paper - for the X-th Max Born Symposium "Quantum Future" that we 
(Philippe and myself) organized, in Wroclaw September, 1997 - the 
paper is available from his site at LBNL. Stapp has published a book 
Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics - a collection of his papers on 
the subject.)

In a long series of e-mails, I tried to convince him that quantum 
theory does not need "mind" or "observer" - at least not any more 
than any other branch of physics. He insisted that it is MIND that is 
responsible for all that HAPPENS. It is MIND that is responsible for 
each and every final act of reduction of the "wave packet," for each 
and every "event," for each and every "quantum jump." And he pointed 
out the weakest place in our new quantum measurement theory (EEQT), 
namely: our theory worked well at the "phenomenological level" but 
could not aspire to become a "fundamental theory." Indeed, our theory 
assumed that a part of the world is "non-quantum," a part of the 
world had to remain "classical;" and it was this part that was surely 
related to the measuring device, to "perception," to "mind."

We could not find anything else in all of physics that would have to 
remain classical, unquantized.

So, willy-nilly, I started to study Stapp's papers again - but now 
with a more positive attitude; namely, with the idea of applying the 
powerful mathematical machinery of EEQT to the Mind-Matter interface. 
But this is another story; it is part of the current Quantum Future 

Speaking of the "Mind," we - physicists - do not know where or how to 
put it into our equations. Some of us deny that such a necessity 
exists. Klaus Hepp at ETH Zurich, for instance - one of the best 
mathematical physicists some twenty years ago - became totally 
engaged in brain research. He believes neurophysiology has a 
beautiful and promising future and, after we learn more and more 
about the functioning of the nervous system, the necessity of using 
the term "mind" will become less and less requisite - the 
understanding of the workings of the physical structure will obviate 
the necessity for looking outside physiology for an abstract, 
non-physical "entity."

On the other hand, Nobel Laureate John Eccles believed that there is 
more than just one "physical world". In Self and its Brain, 
co-authored by Karl Popper, we find an extensive discussion of three 
different WORLDS; only one of them being the physical world that is 
studied by physics. The idea of the three different worlds, World I, 
II and III - belongs to Popper rather than Eccles, but Eccles is 
sympathetic to the idea, and the title of his other little book, " 
How the Self Controls its Brain " is suggestive by itself. The book 
reproduces his paper, co-authored with a German physicist, F. Beck, 
Quantum Aspects of Brain Activity and the Role of Consciousness . 
Well, in my own opinion the paper is rather speculative and 
inconclusive, but its very existence gives us some idea about the 
debates in which physicists and neurologists (but also the artificial 
intelligence community) are engaged about "mind," and whether it is a 
physical artifact or a pre-existent state of consciousness.

Much of this discussion can also be found on the internet - you may 
like to visit quantum-d archives . This list, VERY active at one 
time, has become quiet lately. But it has seen lot of hot discussions 
- especially concerning the Penrose-Hameroff ideas about making 
gravity and microtubules responsible for all the fantastic deeds of 
the consciousness.

A lot can be said about this Penrose-Hameroff theory. It has been 
criticized by many, and some of this critique is expected to appear 
in the proceedings of the "Quantum Future" symposium mentioned above 
. It is not my intention to discuss this topic here as it would 
become too ponderous and lengthy.

Let me just say this: I do believe that gravity is the most 
fundamental of all interactions; I do believe that it is related to 
consciousness and quantum phenomena, but I do not think that the 
Penrose-Hameroff theory is a step forward. Even so, I enjoy reading 
the books by Roger Penrose. I enjoy them and - at the same time - 
they induce sad feelings in my heart... How is it possible that 
having such bright minds, such nice ideas - we understand so little, 
the progress of our understanding is so slow - if there is any 
progress at all!

Summing up: even if we are not yet 100% sure that mind and 
consciousness must be included into a consistent scheme of quantum 
theory, my own work toward elimination of these concepts has shown 
me, at least, the limitations of "pure physical" theories.

Thus, at present, I am searching for ways to integrate mind and 
consciousness into physics - be it on the basis of an extended EEQT 
algorithm, or some other, more radical approach.

We need now to return to our question: if communications from the 
future are possible, why don't we receive these broadcasts on a daily 

If our minds can serve as receivers, then why aren't we all aware of 
the transmissions?

I think that the answer has to do with multiple realities and 
branching universes, and perhaps any civilization which would receive 
messages from the future on a daily basis has ceased to exist because 
communication through time is a very dangerous game. You produce 
paradoxes and these paradoxes remove the paradoxical universes from 
the repository of possible universes; if you create a universe with 
paradoxes, it destroys itself either completely or partially. Perhaps 
just intelligence is removed from this universe because it is 
intelligence that creates paradox. Perhaps we are very fortunate that 
even if we can receive some of these messages from the future, we 
still continue to exist.

Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone 
can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer 
with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It 
becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in 
the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or 
to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a 
"bad choice" or "calamity" for one, could be seen to be a "good 
event" or "benefit" to someone else!

So, the next step would be that "hackers" would begin to break into 
the systems and send false communications into the past to 
deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to 
produce benefits for themselves or others.

Then, the first individual would see that false information has been 
sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn 
themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an 
"imposter" and how to tell that it was false.

Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even 
earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to 
send false information (that was really true) that false information 
(that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the 

This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated 
communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal 
cancelling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly 
the same as if there were NO communication into the past!

There is, also, the very interesting possiblity that the above 
scenario IS exactly what is taking place in our world.

It is also possible that, whenever a civilization comes to the point 
that it can manipulate the past and thereby change the present, it 
would most probably destroy itself, and probably its "branch" of the 
universe, unless there comes a cataclysmic event before this happens 
which would act as a kind of "control system" or way of reducing the 
technological possibilities to zero again, thus obviating the 
potentials of universal chaos. In this way, cataclysmic events could 
be a sort of preventive or pre-emptive strike against such 
manipulations, and may, in fact, be the result of engineered actions 
of benevolent selves in the future who see the dangers of 
communicating with ourselves in the past!

So, the probability is this: if there IS communication from the 
future, it MAY, in fact, be constantly received by each and every one 
of us as an ongoing barrage of lies mixed with truth. Thus, the 
problem becomes more than just "tuning" to a narrow band signal, 
because clearly the hackers can imitate the signal and have become 
VERY clever in delivering their lies disguised as "warm and fuzzy" 
truths; the problem becomes an altogether different proposition of 
believing nothing and ACTING as though EVERYTHING is misleading, 
gathering data from all quarters, and then making the most INFORMED 
choice possible with full realization that it may be in error!

What is important here is this: we can't prevent hackers from 
hacking. But, what we can do is make every effort to prevent them 
from hacking into OUR systems by erecting barriers of knowledge and 
awareness. Hackers are always looking for an "easy hack," (except for 
those few who really LIKE a challenge), and will back away as you 
make your system more and more secure.

How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?

It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken, 
and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers - system 
disruption, loss of "memory," or energy, damaged files, things that 
don't "fit," that are "out of context," - we can reduce the 
possiblity of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are AWARE of 
hackers; if we KNOW that they will attempt to break into our system 
in the guise of a "normal" file, or even an operating system or 
program that promises to "organize" our data for greater efficiency 
and ease of function or "user friendliness," while at the same time, 
acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources - RAM and hard 

As a humorous sidenote: we could think of Windows Operating system as 
the "ultimate hacker from the future" who, disguised as a sheep, is a 
wolf devouring our hard disk and RAM, and sending our files to God 
only knows where every time we connect via the internet!

And of course, there are viruses. Whenever we insert a floppy disk or 
CD into our computer, we risk infection by virii which can, slowly or 
rapidly, distort or destroy ALL the information on our computer, 
prevent ANY peripheral functions, and even "wipe" the hard disk of 
all files to replace them with endless replications of the viral 

The human analogy to this is the many religions and "belief" systems 
that have been "programmed" into our cultures, and our very lives, 
via endless "Prophet/God" programs, replacing, bit by bit, our own 
thinking with the "dogma and doctrines of the faith."

Enough of the computer analogies. I think that the reader can imagine 
any number of variations on the theme and come to an understanding of 
how vulnerable we are to "disinformation" in the guise of truth from 
either the future, the past, or the present.

Before entering into the next subject - the Anthropic Principle and 
its ramification - let me first make some comments concerning some 
peculiar recent developments on my personal plane. I want to talk 
about these things, because they bear a direct relation to these 

In 1998 I removed all my web pages, mostly dealing with the Quantum 
Future project, from the web server at my home institution .


Because a colleague and director of the institute there decided that 
I must not link my Quantum Future pages to this particular subject 
that you are reading now.

For what reason?

Let me quote him: "You may have your personal views on quantum 
mechanics, but your personal views concerning the question of who or 
what are the Cassiopaeans should not be found on the Institute's 
page, similar to your personal views concerning Snow White."

He even forbade placing any - even indirect - link to related subjects!

I wrote him back that "my personal view on quantum theory is such 
that one must not ignore the question that, if transmissions from the 
future are possible, can the Cassiopaean transmissions be 
investigated from this point of view?"

Apparently the very thought about time loops and their possible 
consequences scares SOME "serious scientists" to death; their brains 
start to shake like jelly; they simply refuse to even discuss the 
problem; they ban it without any discussion.

Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, a Russian physicist who spent many years 
in the Siberian Gulag wrote: "Intellectual freedom is essential to 
human society... Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an 
infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous 
hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody 
dictatorships." (Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom; 
secretly circulated in Moscow, 1968, tr. N.Y. Times, July 22, 1968)

Fortunately SOME physicists are open-minded. John Bell, David 
Deutsch, Henry Stapp, John Archibald Wheeler, Brian Josephson, Roger 
Penrose, all of them have put forward, at some point in time, their 
brilliant ideas and have blazed the trail for others.

5. Anthropic Principle

A Physics News service to which I subscribe brought the following:

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News

Number 360 February 25, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein 
ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGY. An anthropic argument is one which suggests that 
certain physical conditions, such as the oxygen content of the 
atmosphere or the Earth's distance from the Sun, are not 
inadvertently beneficial to intelligent life, but might actually be 
especially fine-tuned for life. This viewpoint has been slow to gain 
acceptance among scientists because anthropic logic seems to defy the 
arrow of time: was not the universe here long before man evolved? 
Yes, but there may be more than one universe (as some theories 
predict), or the universe we are in may have many domains, each with 
different physical parameters. And we would, according to these 
arguments, find ourselves in that domain that had just the right 
physics ingredients, just as cold-blooded reptiles thrive only in 
warm climates. Physicists at the Bartol Research Institute at the 
University of Delaware (contact Stephen Barr, 302-831-6883) and the 
University of Massachusetts (John Donoghue, 413-545- 1940) consider 
what the anthropic principle has to say not about atmospheric oxygen 
and Earth orbit, but about parameters of even more fundamental 
importance: the mass of the Higgs boson (the hypothetical particle 
that endows all other particles with mass), the cosmological constant 
(essentially the energy density of the universal vacuum), and the 
Planck mass (the energy scale---thought to prevail in the very early 
universe---associated with gravity, and the energy at which all known 
physical forces would have been equivalent). (V. Agrawal et al., 
Physical Review Letters, 2 March 1998.)
   So, you see, physicists are discussing seriously what is called the 
"anthropic principle"... At least some physicists. Some others, (like 
my colleague JL, mentioned above), try to use whatever power they 
still have to ban such discussions. History repeats itself ... nihil 
novi under the sun.

But back to physics: we are on the Internet now, and we are free to 
discuss ALL implications of ALL things, (Well... up to a point, of 
course because, being responsible, we bear in mind that although 
"Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers, " knowledge can also be 
used for evil purposes.)

I am not quite sure who invented the "anthropic principle" or who 
coined the term. I suspect it all started with Wheeler and Dyson. If 
you are interested in the subject, there is a book by Barrow and 
Tippler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . There is also a book 
by a well known relativist and cosmologist George Ellis, Before the 
Beginning . George Ellis is a well known relativist and cosmologist, 
past president of the International Society for General Relativity 
and Gravitation, a well known co-author (with Stephen Hawking) of 
"The Large Scale Structure of Space Time, " and Fellow of the 
University of Cape Town. You can also visit his home page at the 
Mathematics Department of UCT.

In Before the Beginning , Ellis discusses the "fine tuning" of the 
physical parameters of "our" universe, analyzes the apparent 
"coincidences" (if one of the several important parameters had a 
value even slightly different from the actual one, then life in such 
a universe would be impossible), and comes to the conclusion that 
there are five possible explanations for these parameters to be 
conducive to life: (for more about anthropic principle in general, 
and about George Ellis in particular see the files ellis.html , 
anthcoi.html , anthro8.html at Al Schroeder site.)

1: Pure chance.

2: Greater probability: despite the seeming unliklihood of such 
coincidences, for reasons unexplained, we would tend towards that 

3. Logical necessity. Only one set of laws is consistent in nature.

4. An ensemble theory...which would have many universes, either in 
time, space, or different space-time continuums, most of them 
lifeless, and we are just the luck of the draw.

5. Or an intelligent Creator.

He feels he cannot a priori neglect that last as a possible explanation.

This material on the subject of the anthropic principle has been 
discussed at such length so that you will know that there IS a very 
deep issue in the study of physics which has not been solved no 
matter how many ways have been tried in approaching it. Now, once we 
know there IS some problem, once we know some physicists do feel 
somewhat uneasy without admitting it, let us see if we can add 
something new to all this discussion. Let us see how the problem 
relates to OUR problem, namely to the possible existence of - quoting 
from Cassiopaeans - "us in the future;" to the problems of time 
loops, time travel, branching universes and complexity of creation...

First of all I do not think that the "fine tuning" of physical 
parameters has anything to do with "an intelligent Creator." I do 
know that there are some - even many - people trying to use the facts 
of physics to "prove the existence of God." I do not think it is a 
good thing to do. It does no good - neither to Physics nor to God - 
the main reason being that, while Physics deals with, or at least 
tries to deal with, what is outside of us, the question of God is our 
internal question - to which the answer should be sought inside us. 
(If you are interested in my opinion on this subject, you can read 
the exchange that I had, on this subject, with Tom Elliot from 
Anchorage, Alaska).

Let us discuss the first four possibilities listed above.

"Pure chance" we can discard as being no explanation at all: the lazy 
way out. The "probabilities" in question are so small that we can 
safely discard the "pure chance" hypothesis.

The next in order: "greater probability despite the seeming unliklihood..."

Yes, indeed, there is such a possibility. Assigning probabilities is 
a tricky business. Thus it MAY happen that an event which, at 
present, seems to us be very unlikely, after the discovery of one new 
fact or relation that we were not aware of before, becomes not only 
likely, but also unavoidable.

Can it be the case with "fine tuning" of physical constants and 
parameters of our universe? In principle, YES, it can be so.... For 
instance if, and ONLY if, explanation 5 is the correct one! Thus, it 
is a circular argument.

Thus, let us move to the next possibility: "logical necessity."

Again, this is no explanation all. Indeed, why there should be any 
"logic" in the universe? The very fact that there ARE any laws of 
nature, the very fact that there IS logic itself, is already a puzzle.

And so, what remains is the "ensemble theory" - there are many universes.

We are just in one of them. Some of them are lifeless, some others 
are short-lived ones; no one will ever wonder about them, because 
they will never create any form of intelligence. And there are also 
some endowed with life forms - all kinds of life, the possibilities 
being endless.

This does look like a good start for an "explanation". Or better, as 
a good start for a path full of adventures and leading 
we-have-no-idea where.

And this is the path we have to travel. This path will force us to 
think in new categories; it will force us to open our minds to new 
ways of thinking - about ourselves, in particular, and about life in 

Just to give a moderate example of where such a concept can lead, let 
me quote from " Life in the universe " by Peter Dunsby:

   "[In a paper by Ellis and Brundrit (1979) they have developed] some 
of the consequences of spatially homogeneous universes with infinite 
spatial sections (as in the usual low density and critical density 
universe models). In any such universe, in a large enough volume not 
only is the probability of life unity, but the probability of 
existence of an identical being to each of us is also unity (because 
the genetic code is a finite code). But there are an infinity of such 
volumes in an infinite universe, so we should then each have an 
infinite set of identical twins - leading to the further implication 
that in this infinite set there should be some of our twins with 
arbitrarily close histories to ours .... and so on. The point here is 
that we often glibly talk about spatially infinite universe models, 
without really taking in the implications of that situation. This 
example makes clear how strange they can be."

And this excerpt makes clear how strange the science of physics can be!

6. Extraterrestrial Life

  So, is there extraterrestrial life in the Universe? Let us first 
quote from the "official sources."

NASA declares:

(Note: as of August 11, 1999 this page is not accessible any longer, 
even if there is still a link.) "What is the U.S. government doing to 
investigate UFOs "; from NASA FAQ's page

"No branch of the United States Government is currently involved with 
responsibility for investigations into the possibility of alien life 
on other planets or for investigating Unidentified Flying Objects 
(UFO's). The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and NASA have had intermittent, 
independent investigations of the possibility of alien life on other 
planets; however, none of these has produced factual evidence that 
life exists on other planets, nor that UFO's are related to aliens.

"Under Project Blue Book (1947 to 1969), the Air Force investigated 
UFO's; then in 1977, NASA was asked to examine the possibility of 
resuming UFO investigations. After studying all of the facts 
available, it was determined that nothing would be gained by further 
investigation, since there was an absence of tangible evidence.

"In October 1992, NASA was directed by Congress to begin a detailed 
search for artificial radio signals from other civilizations under 
the NASA Towards Other Planetary Systems (TOPS)/High Resolution 
Microwave Survey (HRMS) program (also known as the Search for 
Extraterrestrial Intelligence project). Congress directed NASA to end 
this project in October 1993, citing pressures on the US Federal 
budget. The HRMS did not detect any confirmed signal before it was 
stopped. However, similar work will continue in a more limited manner 
through efforts of private groups and through academic institutions. 
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (SETI 
Institute) in Mountain View, CA, effectively replaced the Government 
project, borrowing the signal processing system from NASA. The SETI 
Institute is a nonprofit corporation conducting research in a number 
of fields including all science and technology aspects of astronomy 
and planetary sciences, chemical evolution, the origin of life, 
biological evolution, and cultural evolution."

SETI states:

"Over the last half-century, scientists have developed a theory of 
cosmic evolution that predicts that life is a natural phenomenon 
likely to develop on planets with suitable environmental conditions. 
Scientific evidence shows that life arose on Earth relatively 
quickly, suggesting that life will occur on similar planets orbiting 
sun-like stars. With the recent discoveries of extra-solar planetary 
systems, and the suggestive evidence that life may once have existed 
on Mars, this scenario appears even more likely.

"Additionally, one should keep in mind that we are only one planet 
around a very ordinary star. There are roughly 400 billion other 
stars in our Galaxy, and nearly 100 billion other galaxies. It would 
be extraordinary if we were the only thinking beings in all these 
enormous realms."(...)

"The Drake Equation , originally developed as an agenda for a 1961 
scientific meeting, provides a way of estimating the number of 
intelligent civilizations existing in our galaxy that might be 
broadcasting signals. Among the factors considered are the number of 
sun-like stars in our galaxy, the fraction of habitable planets 
supporting communicating civilizations, etc. When these various 
factors are multiplied together, one can compute N, the number of 
transmitting civilizations. Unfortunately, many of the factors are 
only poorly known, so estimates of N range from one (we are alone in 
the Galaxy) to thousands or even millions."

At the same time NASA lists " Some Intriguing Emerging Physics ":

   "Science and technology are continuing to evolve. In just the last 
few years, there have been new, intriguing developments in the 
scientific literature. Although it is still too soon to know whether 
any of these developments can lead to the desired propulsion 
breakthroughs, they do provide new clues that did not exist just a 
few short years ago. A snapshot of just some of the possibilities is 
listed below:

1988; Morris and Thorne: Theory and assessments for using wormholes 
for faster-than-light space travel.

1988; Herbert: Book outlining the loopholes in physics that suggest 
that faster-than-light travel may be possible.

1989; Puthoff: Theory extending Sakharov's 1968 work to suggest that 
gravity is a consequential effect of the vacuum electromagnetic zero 
point fluctuations.

1992; Podkletnov and Nieminen: Report of superconductor experiments 
with anomalous results -- evidence of a possible gravity shielding 

1994; Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff: Theory suggesting that inertia is a 
consequential effect of the vacuum electromagnetic zero point 

1994; Alcubierre: Theory for a faster-than-light "warp drive" 
consistent with general relativity.

1996; Eberlein: Theory suggesting that the laboratory observed effect 
of sonoluminescence is extraction of virtual photons from the 
electromagnetic zero point fluctuations."

So, what we learn from these official sources is not much.

Perhaps extraterrestrial life exists, but it is not the business of NASA.

Perhaps time loops do exist, and NASA is even looking into the 
theories that deal with creating special space-time configurations 
(warp-drive, wormholes, tachyonic and negative matter generated 
gravity effects), but NASA is interested in these theories only from 
the point of view of building new efficient propulsion systems.

Is there anybody interested in other possible consequences of the new physics?

Perhaps. Perhaps these are privately funded organizations (like 
SETI). Perhaps, (and almost certainly), other government agencies 
that can finance more risky programs, with other goals in mind than 
just space travel.

And here we come to the point where I have to share with you my own 
position - position of an open-minded theoretical physicist. I 
consider myself open-minded enough to listen to everybody, but 
independent enough to make my own final judgements. After surfing 
through the net I have found that some of my views have already been 
spelled out by a somewhat kindred soul: the "theatrical physicist" 
(as he used to call himself), Jack Sarfatti. I share with him many of 
the same interests; we have some common friends and heroes whom we 
like to quote (David Bohm, David Deutsch, David Finkelstein, Henry 
Stapp), but apparently he is much more active in the business of 
public relations while I spend all my time on working and on active 

So, what is my point of view?

First of all it seems to me, and in fact I am even pretty sure, that 
what we know, our present "science," is not even the tip of the 
iceberg of what might be known or maybe even what IS known in certain 
circles. We know very little and we understand even less. We are so 
much constrained in our perception, our thinking abilities, that we 
can see and process only one side of a multi-faceted reality; and 
even so, with a lot of distortion. Some of our concepts are pretty 
good and objective, some others are of poor quality and subjective. 
But even those that are sound and objective (like atoms, light, 
energy), even these are grasped by us only partially, with much more 
veiled from us due, it seems, to our own genetic restriction.

So, I think that Reality is multi-faceted and multi-leveled and we 
are consciously experiencing only one (or a few) of the existing 
levels and/or facets. The multi-leveled and multi-faceted Realit 
includes: many worlds, many realms, parallel and perpendicular 
universes, higher dimensions, higher levels of intelligence and of 
perception, and very likely a consciousness of which we cannot even 

Some of these concepts have already been integrated into theoretical 
physics (many worlds, parallel universes, higher dimensions), and can 
be studied - at least theoretically - with mathematical rigor; while 
those dealing with mind, consciousness, intelligence, are yet to be 
integrated. Once that is done, once we admit and realize that that 
material existence is not all that can be thought of and dealt with 
using mathematical rigor - new vistas, new hopes and new goals will 
appear on the horizon. And by doing this, WE will take charge of the 
evolutionary development of life. BY doing this we will choose to 
obey our own call from the future. By doing this we will make real 
what is now only virtual.

I believe that the Universe has Purpose, that it is much like a 
computer program of great complexity, and that "we" - the IGUS-es - 
have a role in its evolution. For a while our role can be described 
simply as "debugging units." In short, my present answer to the 
question "why are we here?" reads: DEBUGGING THE UNIVERSE.

Universes without life, without feedback from the "observers" have 
only virtual existence, their future is closed; while "our" future, 
as well as the future of "our universe," is in my opinion, to large 
extent, OPEN.

The question of existence of other forms of life is, in particular, 
one of these tricky questions whose answers are "open". YOU, the 
Reader, can choose to live in a universe with a "no" answer, but you 
can also choose to live in a "yes" universe.

I am not saying the choice is going to be easy, or possible at all. 
Every choice needs an effort. The more important the choice, the more 
effort it needs. Without making this effort we are simply machines, 
and then the choices are being made for us - either by pure chance or 
by others.

So, what I am saying here relates, to some extent, to some of the 
ideas expanded in Jung's " Flying Saucers. A Modern Myth of Things 
Seen in the Skies ." Let me quote from an article by John Fraim :

' Jung concluded that "news affirming the existence of UFOs is 
welcome, but that skepticism seems to be undesirable. . .to believe 
that UFOs are real suits the opinion, whereas disbelief is to be 
discouraged.... There is a tendency all over the world to believe in 
saucers and to want them to be real, unconsciously helped along by a 
press that otherwise has no sympathy with the phenomenon." Jung then 
asked a most incisive question: "Why should it be more desirable for 
saucers to exist than not?"

'For Jung, the "desirability" of UFO existence relates to a psychic 
need and is connected with signaling the end of one era and the 
beginning of another. It was not a new phenomenon but, rather, one 
that manifested the change of archetypes that constellate around the 
end of one age and the beginning of another. As he wrote in the 
introduction to Flying Saucers: "It is not presumption that drives 
me, but my conscience as a psychiatrist that bids spare those few who 
will fulfill my duty and prepare those few which are in accord with 
the end of an era."

'Jung found precedence for these archetypal harbingers of change in 
preceding periods of history that involved the collective psyche: As 
we know from ancient Egyptian history, there are manifestations of 
psychic changes which always appear at the end of one Platonic month 
and at the beginning of another. Apparently they are changes in the 
constellations of psychic dominants, of the archetypes, or "gods" as 
they used to be called, which bring about, or accompany, long-lasting 
transformation of the collective psyche.

'The changes in archetypes seem to have a connection to major 
movements in astrological houses. "This transformation, " noted Jung, 
"started in the historical era and left its traces first in the 
passing of the aeon of Taurus into that of Aries, and then of Aries 
into Pisces, whose beginning coincides with the rise of Christianity. 
We are now nearing that great change which may be expected when the 
spring-point enters Aquarius."'


[Bell 87] Bell, J. "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics", 
Cambridge University Press, 1987

[Bell 89] Bell, J. : "Towards an exact quantum mechanics", in "Themes 
in Contemporary Physics II. Essays in honor of Julian Schwinger's 
70th birthday", Deser, S. , and Finkelstein, R. J. Ed. , World 
Scientific, Singapore 1989

[Bell 90] Bell, J. : "Against measurement", in "Sixty-Two Years of 
Uncertainty. Historical, Philosophical and Physical Inquiries into 
the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", Proceedings of a NATO Advanced 
Study Institute, August 5-15, Erice, Ed. Arthur I. Miller, NATO ASI 
Series B vol. 226 , Plenum Press, New York 1990

[Eccles 77] Eccles, J., Popper, K.: "Self and its Brain", Springer , 
New York 1977

[Eccles 92] Beck, F. and Eccles, J.C.: "Quantum aspects of brain 
activity and the role of consciousness", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 
89 (1992) pp. 11357-11361.

[Eccles 94] Eccles, J.C.: "How the Self Controls its Brain", 
Springer, Berlin 1994

[Ellis 73] Ellis, G., Hawking, S.: "The Large Scale Structure of 
Space-Time", Cambridge University Press, 1973

[Ellis 93] Ellis, G.: "Before the Beginning", Bowerdean/Marion Boyars, 1993.

   [Gold97] Goldstein, S. : "Quantum Theory without Observers"

[Jung64] Jung, C.G.: "Flying Saucers. A Modern Myth of Things Seen in 
the Skies." Vol. 10 & 18. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung., 
Translated by R.F.C. Hull. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton, NJ: 
Princeton University Press, 1964

[Stapp 93] Stapp, H.P.: "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics", 
Springer Verlag, Berlin 1993

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ibogaine mailing list