When Ms. K.M. found this short article and sent it to me, I knew I'd be blogging about it.

We've all heard of the phenomenon of "entanglement," i.e., that when information of a particular sort is modulated or induced into a pair of particles, which pair are then shot in different directions, that modification of that information in one particle instantaneously is transferred to the other.  But there's another problem: the observer. In quantum mechanics, because of its now well-known observer effect, or, to give it its proper name, its uncertainty principle, one cannot measure certain types of attributes of things at the same time. These are called conjugate attributes: one cannot measure the position of an electron, and its velocity, at the same time. Couple these two things to entanglement, and what is measured at one end is translated to the other. The problem, of course, that all this suggests the observer/experimenter may have a much more important role in the actual creation of reality than was dreamed possible just a little over one hundred years ago.

Now, according to the article Ms. K.M. sent me, scientists now want to test these two principles directly:

Scientists Are About to Perform an Experiment to See if The Human Mind Is Bound by Physics

Now, for those who've been following this website, and particularly some of the discussions we've had in our members' vidchats, and some of the members' webinars, this will sound familiar:

Simply put, the Bell test involves a pair of entangled particles: one is sent towards location A and the other to location B. At each of these points, a device measures the state of the particles.

The settings in the measuring devices are set at random, so that it's impossible for A to know the setting of B (and vice versa) at the time of measurement. Historically, the Bell test has supported the spooky theory.

Now, Lucien Hardy, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada, is suggesting that the measurements between A and B could be controlled by something that may potentially be separate from the material world: the human mind.

His idea is derived from what French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes called the mind-matter duality, "[where] the mind is outside of regular physics and intervenes on the physical world," as Hardy explained.

To do this, Hardy proposed a version of the Bell test involving 100 humans, each hooked up to EEG headsets that would read their brain activity. These devices would be used to switch the settings on the measuring devices for A and B, set at 100 kilometres apart.

"The radical possibility we wish to investigate is that, when humans are used to decide the settings (rather than various types of random number generators), we might then expect to see a violation of quantum theory in agreement with the relevant Bell inequality," Hardy wrote in a paper published online earlier this month.

If the correlation between the measurements don't match previous Bell tests, then there could be a violation of quantum theory that suggests A and B are being controlled by factors outside the realm of standard physics.

This comes very close to the experiments of Dr. William Tiller, though the latter were on consciousness or intentional manipulation of macro-effects rather than quantum effects. However, it is the same in that (1) it involves a group of people, presumably for the purpose of statistical measuring and sampling, and in that (2) it involves direct human intentional manipulation. Unlike Tiller's experiments, however, there's no indication of any written out specific intention, which, in Tiller's opinion, is crucial in order to avoid conscious incoherence, and which, as I pointed out in a member's webinar, bears explicit and specific resemblance to the formulation of western theological sacramental theory.

Additionally, the experiment also resembles similar intentionality experiments already conducted on random number generators. In the case of those experiments, the results for the most part have suggested that there is indeed a a measurable effect of conscious intention on physical systems otherwise not directed in physical contact with the "intender." These results would seem to predict that, in so far as Mr. Hardy's experiment - if it is ever performed - might be concerned, there will be a similar effect, so long as the participants are coherent, i.e., agreed in intention on the outcome. Time will tell, of course, but if so, it will be another experimental confirmation that the merely material cosmology is in drastic need of supplementation and expansion.

Of course, the result, if they go as I suspect they will go, as indicated by such consciousness experiments on random number generators as have already been performed, will be hotly contested and debated(just as those random number generator tests have been contested and debated).  If Mr. Hardy performs his experiments carefully, and if there is indication of such mind-over-matter correlation, then the real thing, at that point, is to begin to investigate any group multiplier effect(if any): does this vary in its effects with age groups? Males? Females? Do the number of people agreed on a specific intention intensify the effect? And so on.

Of course, all this is, for the moment, guess work. The experiments have not been performed, but this is definitely one to watch.

See you on the flip side...


  1. My thinking here is that there is a connection to mass consciousness, mandela effect, and reality-decision making, events like 9/11 and timelines.

  2. how can this be weaponised without either blowing up one’s own mind or having the galactic cavalry come to your nadir for violation of cosmic principles ,which regulations are held in writing in Douglas Adams Vogan Destruction Fleets planet in that filing cabinet down in the cellars, past the dragons, in the filing cabinet, Quantum locked (sounds cool). If you don’t know all this you are not taking an interest in local affairs.
    alternatively, also Adams, this mind entanglement if made coherent and if coherent, will enable instant and fully transparent communications across the board and give rise to far more uglier and bloodier wars than ever before.
    thought will therefore need to be licensed (to the highest bidder)

  3. If one supposes that “we” are still on a long, long, road into deep time; than discoveries like consciousness are not just subjected to one intelligence[“we”]. Assume this road has been travelled and that “consciousness” is very well understood. So well, that perception management on a truly “universal” scale is common. What’s, though; state-of-the-art? That, I imagine can, and is layered. Perhaps, in mathematical jargon: approaching infinity. So intricate, that parallel & multiple universe are possible in perception[though not reality]. In fact, illusions in these engineered realities, are of course not real. There are engineered forces that build these illusions and layer them. Much would than become unknown. So much, that this Dark Universe would be what? 90% unknown; leaving us, at most 10% aware?
    Oh Shakespeare, what a tangled web have they weave. So many entanglements. So as Alice In Wonderland learns; the definition of the word[perception] depends on who is in control. ” ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scientific tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to'[his individualized/interactive layer] -‘neither more nor less….The ? is, which is to be master'[alien corruption] -‘that’s all’.”

  4. “Lucien Hardy, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada, is suggesting that the measurements between A and B could be controlled by something that may potentially be separate from the material world: the human mind.”

    I would love to be a fly on the wall after bringing-together Dr. Hardy and Carlos Castaneda (or better yet, his shaman/sorcerer teacher, Don Juan Matus) for a deep chat. Or maybe one of the many authentic Holy Men with ‘unusual’ powers. It is one thing to be deep in your intellect, protected by layers of sophistry. It is another when a Master chooses to mess with you (for your own good) to your face…

    One thing that I hope Dr. Hardy can ‘sift’ for before he begins his experiments is the “Negative Psychic.” These were/are individuals found statistically during decades-back experiments by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team. The team was trying to sort-out ‘gifted’ individuals statistically, and came up with a new category. Some people were way-out (grin) on negative-results, far beyond statistical chance. The team reasoned that these people ‘knew’ the desired-outcome (perhaps subconsciously) and consistently Chose the wrong answer. Again, this was not just guessing wrong; it was ‘guessing’ wrong far beyond where normal-guessing would place you. Consistently. (My thought, on reading their book, was that the person(s) had had a traumatic experience involving psychic powers in their past [maybe even past lives] and was actively-psychic but terrified of revealing it.)

    Dr. Hardy had better test-out and remove these Negative Psychics, or they will mangle his statistics beyond recognition…

    1. I wonder how many unkowns[not published] have surpassed those “inked” masters?
      Especially, those spiritual beings that actually practice what they preach[for lack of correct language].

  5. Is this why they’ve reduced our attention spans and created a condition of incoherence e.g. in language and culture in general?

  6. This just shows how complicated the human body and mind is. You have to give credit to Enki in creating us to the degree we are at. As far as science is concerned, they know jack s**t about the mind and all the experiments in the world isn’t going to reveal anything. The great architect of the universe is one smooth dude.

  7. This recalls some mind control experiments that various authors have been talking about for decades; especially the implication, at least in this summary, that brain electrical activity IS the thought.

  8. The observer is intricately involved on a consciousness that is both symbolic[to individual spirit]; interactive w/our own perception/environment.
    There are layers within layers of this consciousness phenomenon. There are manmade ones like financialization. There is/are nature/universe[the Garden of Eden] where perception is individual/spiritualized interactive observer/environment. And, unfortunately, there is the Alien corrupted one.

  9. Mr. Dale Cooper’s doppelgänger in “Spin Speaks” casts shadow. Whereas supreme “spin” of sovereignty sees eye to eye with analogue computer creating origin. Quintessence is risen.

    Christianity shows the way: Single most important axiom in biblical records is “By myself have I spin“. Genesis 22:16.

  10. I wonder if they will add your parameters of – when and where for this experiment.
    It’s a stunning observation and should be integrated into all experimental protocol especially when investigating phenomenology

  11. Theta waves. Harmonic resonance. Intent and willpower.
    Trust what you’re thinking and experiencing as being real.

    Believe yourself.. Its harder than you think, be careful or you end up sounding and looking like those poor souls wondering the streets with 10 cats following them and charms and fetishes hanging from their hair.. mixed in with aluminium foil.. (but tinfoil is useful for the physical qualities of the Aluminium. . you have to read up on it..)

    Oh.. And Physics doesnt work like we think it does. There are no limits, it doesnt stop because it gets to a barrier. Our manner of measuring and our understanding therefore may have limits, but the physics doesnt.

    1. “Our manner of measuring and our understanding therefore may have limits, but the physics doesnt.”

      Physics uses limited tools and language and ignores contradictory findings all the time, example “empty space is curved”.

      Reality may or may not have limits, in some cases physics can describe some of the limits. Then usually, there’s a better understanding, and a door way is opened in those previous limits.

      1. “Physics uses limited tools and language and ignores contradictory findings all the time, example “empty space is curved.”

        Lost, are you TRYING to not make sense, or do you actually think the above is a coherent, sensibly-worded expression of an idea?

        “Reality may or may not have limits.” Is that so? Well, my beard may or may not have crumbs in it. Which of us made the more profound statement, Lost?

        1. P:

          I’m sure you can figure it out. It’s not especially abstruse.

          I’ll let you concern yourself with beard grooming.

    1. Pepper:

      This isn’t really about Radionics, now it could suggest that successful Radionics practitioners are drawing from elsewhere. But the experiment hasn’t been run.

    2. I had not heard of the man, looks interesting. Saved for later viewing. Hey, if you call yourself that cuz of the song, well….dude. I LOVE that band. If not, never mind ;^)

      1. Hope you enjoy. Tom Bearden is quite a fascinating guy to listen to. He’s got quite a few vids up on youtube but “Radionics” really blows my mind.

        Makes me think of “Forbidden Planet.”

        Regarding the nick, I just pulled that out of a hat for no reason at all.

        1. Oh, ok. I won’t let on about the nick. But just between you and me, if a GDSnaut says to you, “Pepper! Right on!
          “Some will die in hot pursuit of fiery auto crashes
          Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes
          Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain
          That is pouring like an avalanche…comin’ down the mountain.”
          ….just nod and smile knowingly.

Comments are closed.