« Anyone like myself, who has had the rare good fortune to experience in a spiritual exchange with Wilhelm, the divinatory power of the I Ching, cannot for long remain ignorant of the fact that we have touched here an Archimedean point from which our Western attitude of mind can be shaken to its foundations. » Carl Gustav JUNG: (Comments on “The Secret Of The Golden Flower.”: Appendix: “In Memory of Richard Wilhelm”.)


How can that be?! To manipulate some straws randomly, to discover an aphorism at least thirty centuries old, lost in an abstruse spell book from a polar opposite culture that refers to neolithic ancestors, to their esoteric rituals… and to find yourself stunned, paralyzed by the suitability of the moment, to understand synchronicity with your gut, to see in front of your way a door that opens towards the unknown and another door shutting behind you on a world vision you instinctively admitted as obvious, beyond any question…! It is an understatement to say: « we have touched here an Archimedean point from which our Western attitude of mind can be shaken to its foundations. »

A synchronicity discovered 4 decades ago, repeated regularly and as staggeringly relevant today than before.

So, even as incredible it may be, it is possible to trigger synchronicities voluntarily, as if we were living in a Great Game and not in a material world, as if we could call upon a Joker to see things differently, from a superior dimension, in a way.

So great an incoherence between the experienced event and the world we perceive – the current paradigm – requires an explanation, a new look on the basis of reality as we can understand them. And the amazement repeats itself, again and again, as we discover the deep disruption initiated by the Theory of Relativity then Quantum Mechanics. To the happy surprise of Jung the physicists answer with deep confusion:

« The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.»
« Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. » Niels BOHR

« Whatever matter is, it isn’t made of matter.» Hans Peter DÜRR

« […] the nineteenth century […] saw a certain divorce taking place between scientists and philosophers […] But such a separation could only be prejudicial both to philosophy and to science […] many scientists of the present day, victims of an ingenuous realism, almost without perceiving it, have adopted a certain metaphysics of a materialistic and mechanistic character and have regarded it as the very expression of scientific truth. One of the great services that the recent evolution of physics has rendered contemporary thought, is that it has destroyed this simplified metaphysics, and with the same stroke has caused certain traditional philosophical problems to be considered in an entirely new light. Thereby the way has been prepared for a reconciliation between science and philosophy […]» Louis de BROGLIE

« The more success the quantum Theory has, the sillier it looks!» Albert EINSTEIN

« Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.»
« The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd.» Richard FEYNMAN


No need to quote all the physicists deeply destabilized by their discoveries. Many became schizophrenic in a way: handling elegantly and successfully the foundations of reality in their laboratories, but immersing again in the worn-out paradigm in everyday life! Even if they are perfectly aware that it gives us a deeply false idea of reality! Four centuries of scientific discoveries led Science to be soaked by Physicalism:

There is only one realm and not two as postulated by Descartes. Reality is made of matter only and matter obeys the Laws of Physics; everything else comes from emergence. The material brain secretes thoughts as the liver secretes bile! There is no such thing as a spiritual realm that is distinguishable from the material realm; the soul is an overused concept. The scientific paradigm, the absolute frame in which every rational spirit has to be, is a Materialistic and Realistic Monism.

But this is old stuff! Twenty’s century Science destroyed what ninety’s century Science thought to have found! And physicists, maybe too much disturbed, didn’t succeed to communicate their conclusions.

« Galileo was able to educate the world to understand that the Earth goes around the Sun … yet physicists today have utterly failed to inform the public to understanding the purely mental nature of the universe with all that that implies for the meaning of human existence. That is a tragedy, and it should be rectified. I wish I knew how.» Richard Conn HENRY

So Jung’s amazement is far from lone; it reverberates among the specialists of the real world, as a myriad of images mirrored from one-another. And things go on as before: business as usual!

But we need rethink our paradigm; we need instinctly to rely on a paradigm since it is the only way we have to understand the world we live in and, therefore, to survive in it.

This Blog tries to think about the features of the new world view we’re meant to find. A paradigm in which we could take for ourselves the discoveries of physicists, but also the discoveries of Eastern philosophies and of mystics that help to understand what Science has to say. Indeed, Science and Spirituality can be associated to help us in this quest for reality.

« SIMULISM: Are we living in a virtual reality? » is a pdf file that takes advantage of hypertext to separate presentations from deepening and makes very easy looking for definitions, complements… on the Net.


The File can be downloadable here.

A « Print-friendly » version is available here.


There can be no life without answers to the first question that needs to be answered; yet the question is so primordial, so fundamental, that no organism can even wonder about it! Evolution has ways to take this question in charge and let the species find appropriate and often remarkable answers to this crucial question: “How to live?

Long ago enthusiastic naturalists discovered the wonderful creativity of life whenever it faces challenges; even the most primitive organisms can show astounding adaptations. Relations between populations of different species, interactions with their natural habitats, research for food or shelter, reproduction strategies… and resourcefulness when conditions change, all these behaviours are so well adapted that naturalists were convinced for a long time that they had been wilfully created with specific goals.

Living seems so natural that it’s difficult to imagine how arduous it is really. Myriads of interactions between innumerable different molecules have to integrate to form one well adapted organism that behaves in a characteristic way of living and as a unit in a specific environment. After the germination of a seed or the hatching of an egg, each living organism is able to thrive in spite of the tremendous complexity of the process, and mostly without any help. Whatever scale we look at, beginning with intracellular molecules through populations and societies, everything seems to work according to highly successful and smart plans. It’s only when something looses its sophisticated regulations that we begin to become aware of what we lost. In a normal state, everything runs so smoothly that we’re not aware of it.


After the naturalists’ discoveries about whole species, molecular biologists in the 20th century’s discovered the subtle adaptations of primordial life mechanisms to physical and chemical laws. Life creates highly improbable molecules that build and animate organisms, yet it obeys exactly the same laws that govern the inanimate material world.

Even very primitive bacteria are able to actively look for nutrients and express smart behaviour when they have the choice between more or less profitable ones. Microbes can even regulate their mutation rate to accelerate evolution when needed. Stress in harsh environments triggers molecular mechanisms that let more mutations appear; some of which could, by chance, be helpful in hard times. Some species can live alone or, when conditions deteriorate, choose to build communities of different species that share genetic properties to increase their potential adaptability. They can even change completely their physiology, fix on a surface and interact tightly with other species to form a new supra-specific entity: wastes from one species become nutrients for another… a poison to one is detoxified by another… Biologists working in the microworld are as amazed by these adaptations as naturalists by the ones they describe from the macroworld.

These discoveries are discussed at school and Darwin showed elegantly and convincingly how to answer questions related to amazing species’ adaptations. We can even understand how intelligent behaviour appears in ants’ or termites’ nests and actively adapts to a changing environment; we can make models that explain how bacteria choose the best answers to difficult situations without any brain.

We begin to understand how each organism answers the first crucial question since birth. And the human species with its specific faculties becomes able to understand why and how the first crucial question is answered.


Surprisingly – but sadly – it isn’t the subject we’re trained to work on at school. When we think about it, it becomes obvious that nothing could be more important than the answer we should thrive to find: this answer has great effects on ones life and behaviour. The question is: “What are we? »

Our behaviour would be drastically different if we perceive ourselves as made of matter only, inexorably subject to decay, or as part of an entity that transcends matter. Biology already replaces us in a larger context than the individual organism. Each living entity is nothing outside innumerable interactions that gave it life nearly 4 billions years ago; interactions that participate every second in its existence. Is our consciousness linked only to the matter we’re made with, or is it able to transcend it?


Religions or cosmologies from different cultures often try to impose an answer without inviting each one to enquire for oneself. Here we’re taught that we’re created by God who gives us a body which is made out of matter and a soul which isn’t. But since the beginnings of Science we learned to put dogmas in question and try to find rational and understandable answers to our questions. For four centuries Science has shown the power of its tools to convince every one who gives oneself the necessary material and intellectual means, to become personally and rationally convinced of the pertinence of answers to questions arising from the world and life; questions that are specifically relevant to us as human beings. We aren’t like other animals who build their world’s image from instincts and experience, but we modify our views through our cultures and reflections. Science invites us to take ownership of a culture without buying passively its dogmas. Unfortunately, Science can itself become dogmatic when it is inappropriately applied; this danger was especially great at the end of the 19th century, but the revolutions in modern physics revitalised the Scientific Methodology and the philosophical reflections induced by its results.


Are we made out of matter only? Four centuries of outstanding scientific successes led our western culture to give a positive answer to this crucial question! But it is maybe a collateral damage of Science rather than a reality. The great majority of scientists forget the prejudice chosen by the creators of the Method: they built tools specific to give answers to questions on MATTER and on matter only; questions linked to the spiritual realm were confined to philosophy and theology. With time and the immense successes of this pragmatic philosophy, philosophers became scientists and convinced themselves that only matter is real. Due to working only on matter, due to stunning results accumulated for so long, due to outstanding practical applications coming from researches on the nature of matter, it is not surprising that the people responsive for transforming the world for four centuries convinced themselves they could answer every question by questioning matter only! And we all forget that it is only a postulate that originated well after the beginning of Science!

But this postulate is no more compatible with last century’s physics: its results continuously show that the intimate nature of matter isn’t understandable with common sense: the other pillar on which physics stands, besides mathematics. Modern physics sometime leads one to imagine that even consciousness could mysteriously influence the results in experiments defined to reveal what is matter. The Universe isn’t anymore this immense meaningless and cold object imagined by 19th century’s positivists. Since the beginning of the 20th century It becomes “participative” according to John Wheeler and “begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine” according to Sir James Jeans.


Why not follow many physicists on their way back towards the original philosophy that gave birth to Science? The road is to find personal answers when interested, either by doing experiments or by replicating the ones done by others. It is not only about analysing and learning from results described by others: it is about doing the actual experiment whenever possible. This is the best road to a rational and personal conviction which is the major goal of Science. It is not always necessary to access a heavy technology: sometimes thought experiments are sufficient to reach surprising results.

Too often today rational conviction is acquired through critical analysis of material created by others and sometimes, unfortunately, this confidence can be lazily accorded to dogmatic personalities. When confronted by complex questions, it becomes necessary to delegate one’s own work to experts able to master specialised domains. But it isn’t always simple to assess the objectivity of such experts who should remain sufficiently open and able to re-evaluate their own convictions. That’s why personal experience is the best way to acquire knowledge, as long as it remains affordable of course.

So how could we look for the answer to the question: « What are we? » and the related ones: « Are we only flesh and bones? »; « How could I know what I am, if part of it is unconscious? »


If we’d like question the postulate that gives reality to matter only, we should obviously work with something that is immaterial, like information: we could, for instance, look if information can be transmitted without the help of matter-energy, through mechanisms that use neither atoms, nor waves. If we could be rationally convinced that we’re able to receive informations that isn’t related to matter as we perceive it, then we could make some progress towards a better understanding of our true nature.

In an ideal experimental protocol we should try to receive informations that is linked neither to matter nor to our memory, whether conscious or even unconscious. With these restrictions in mind, an ideal choice would be an information that comes from the future and that couldn’t be related with whatever we know about past and present: in this way we could be sure that our memory can’t be responsible for it! It is maybe worthwhile to open a little parenthesis here for an important fact about time: in every mathematical formula physicists discovered, time remains reversible! In other words, when mathematics only are analysed – not our common sense – physicists find that their formulas don’t forbid informations going in both directions: towards future OR past! Therefore, even if receiving informations from the future seems a crazy idea for common sense, it isn’t completely so according to physics’ formulas!

The information presumably coming from the future should be clear, precise and free (without a goal other than a philosophical one), in order to become rationally convinced that it isn’t explainable only by coincidence, subconscious deductions or buried memories.

Several protocols could be imagined for this quest. Intuition – the mysterious source of emotions without conventional sources of knowledge – is probably too difficult to work with for this experiment. But we could adapt the works of a British engineer in aeronautics who published in 1927 An Experiment with Time where he describes his views on time and his personal experiences that led him to work on the nature of time.


dunneJ.W. Dunne – a renowned engineer in aeronautics – worked for some years on dreams after he had several perplexing ones that seemed premonitory. He decided to analyse thoroughly his dreams as a scientific minded person. The trigger was a moving dream made a few days before a great disaster in a French island of the Caribbean: the eruption of Mount Pelée, on the 8th of May 1902 which killed 28,000 people living in St Pierre de la Martinique, the town down the volcano.

Dunne dreamt he was on a volcanic island beginning to tear apart; gas and smoke leaking from the soil. His dream-body felt anxious as if he was walking on a huge pressure cooker that was about to explode. He tried to alert the French authorities governing the island, without success: the mayor was absent for lunch and his secretaries asked him to come back on next day! His dream-body was looking how he could avoid the 4,000 victims he anticipated when Dunne woke up shouting “Look mister mayor! Four thousand people will be killed unless…”

Dunne’s analytical mind understood it couldn’t be a simple coincidence when he read, a few days later in the newspaper, what happened in this French colony. Too many specific details like the nationality of the authorities, the reluctance of the mayor to evacuate the island (the true reason was that an election was taking place on the 11th, 2 days after the eruption)… The engineer took advantage of his scientific training to elaborate a protocol and find out if he could really experience premonitory dreams. He created a theory about the nature of Time that didn’t survive until today but his protocol is still useful.


As for Dunne, some of my dreams seemed awkwardly premonitory. I decided therefore to apply Dunne’s protocol and registered many ones that confirmed their reality: much too many “coincidences” to explain, if premonition isn’t possible! (see below for some illustrations)

There are many difficulties to overcome; some are discussed below with the way Dunne resolved them.

But one shouldn’t forget we don’t know what is the purpose of dreams! It probably doesn’t try to convince us of its premonition capacities, but rather to trigger emotions. Maybe Dunne’s dream about the eruption took advantage of images taken from his future memory that were able to arouse the same emotion the dream-organiser (whoever it is!) wanted Dunne to feel. Therefore it is difficult to share precognition experiences in dreams: they won’t trigger the same emotions in everybody! And personal experience becomes necessary to be really convinced about their reality.

I followed Dunne’s protocol and became absolutely convinced our dream- consciousness can take advantage of our future mind states to transmit whatever it looks to. I registered 48 clear premonition dreams on a decade. It is an underestimated number because I recognised their premonition features only if the recognised event happened in the following days. Many could be classified as precognitive while reading old registered dreams. But I avoid doing so to minimise coincidence as explained below.

Obviously the first step in the protocol is to learn how to remember one’s dreams. A learning period is usually necessary. One has to be genuinely interested to remember one’s dreams. Each night, just before sleep, one should forcefully remember this intention and prepare some items (notebook and pencil) at hand’s reach.

Usually dreams fade out on awakening, more so when the body moves. To remember dreams one should remain motionless and repeat them to oneself, reordering the images that are remembered as some of these trigger the remembering of new ones. In doing this it seems that we could transpose the memory of dreams from a region in which they can’t be accessed by our awakened consciousness, to another one from which they can. One should avoid any interpretation of the dreams since imagination could severely interfere. If interested in their significance, one should do that later, while reading the accounts made on awakening.

Once the key images are remembered, one should take the notebook prepared at hand-reach, in the dark, with as few movements as possible. A spring-type notebook is a good choice since turning pages is easy and a pencil can be tied to the spring.

The notebook in the left hand (for right-handers), place the left index up the spring then reach it with the pencil. One can write a first line whilst the right-hand’s little finger senses the end of the page. When it’s reached, the left index should go down a few centimetres to write a second line that won’t mix with the first, and so on.

One shouldn’t write a novel of course! Just a few words that would trigger the remembering of the dream’s images and their associated sceneries; details are very important since it’s them that are usually precognitive. Once finished, the page should be turned and the notebook prepared for an eventual other record.

The next morning the dreams should be written in great details; this is not very difficult if the intention to remember them is powerful. While experimenting with time, one should avoid trying to find interpretations of the dreams and shouldn’t compare them to real scenes experienced in the awakened life. The description should be completely separated from interpretation to avoid unconscious interferences with memory.


When dreams are regularly remembered and recorded, it is time to begin the experiment. One should choose a period covering a dozen days or so in which, preferably, your normal routine would be broken: holidays, trips… are good choices. New and unusual dream images become more easily recognisable.

Each night you should read all the records taken since the beginning of the defined period for the experiment, and analyse them in order to find situations or images that our personal dream-organiser could have borrowed from our life’s experience. After experimenting, Dunne was convinced that our dream’s-organiser could present us images taken from our past OR FUTURE life! in order to communicate whatever message it chose to share. Ask yourself if the dream’s situations read each night could have been picked from the past or from the days that follow the dream. Are they sufficiently rare and detailed to be significant and not just coincidences?

For this experiment to work, one has to tackle some problems that Dunne has well described and answered.

As stated before you should not try to link real events with dreamed ones. It seems that dreams use only mental states and not the precise events that happened. Dunne took fifteen years to discover that he made in his life-changing dream exactly the same error that he did some days after his dream when he read the article in the Daily Telegraph. He confused ” 40,000 victims” as it was written in the newspaper with ” 4,000 victims” and his dream took the latter in his precognition. Dunne found in many instances that the dream- organiser used mostly mental states induced by events (emotions, feelings, memories…) rather than the objective situations. But it is not stopped by time and can choose past or future mental states as well without being bothered by what really happened: only the subjective world seems to be important for the dream-organiser!

While reading your notes you should therefore look for mental states that could arouse dreamlike images from the past and… for the near future after the dream.

One should keep in mind that a dream can integrate details originating from different events, in one image only. If you followed some sport event with a friend, you could dream of your friend wearing this sport’s kit, even if s/he never practiced it! To look for a hit, you should analyse details separated from each other and not the integrated mixture.


Our limited perceptions are at the core of our common sense. There is therefore a danger to unconsciously keep oneself unable to accept experiences that could be destabilising for our world’s image. When this happens, one simply doesn’t see the precognitive images! To avoid this problem, Dunne recommends to read your records each night while imagining that you’re discovering the dreams that you WILL dream about the events that happened in the day you just lived.

Next, you should limit the experiment to a few days only. This is meant to diminish the interference with coincidences, the effect of chance only on what could be a precognition. If for instance, you dream of an airplane crash without many details, it’s very probable that one would happen in the year after your dream. But if you dreamt it the night before it takes much more importance of course.

When finished with the time period chosen for the experiment, it’s a good idea to ask a friend to read your notes with a critical eye, just to see if you didn’t forget an interesting event or, on the contrary, if you tend to take simple coincidences for precognitions. You should then try to estimate the probability that the event that was dreamt before happening could be a mere coincidence. Unfortunately in most cases this is very difficult if not impossible. In these situations one should rely on one’s feelings to appreciate the power of the dream’s-organiser to forecast future mental states.


Suppose that you earn from this experiment a personal and rational conviction on the reality of precognition! What important changes in your philosophy of life you could expect from this! What important reflections in your world’s image and your image of yourself could you deduce!

So we could have access to informations coming from the future, without engaging our physical perceptions, without interactions with inert or living matter as physicists or biologists described it until the beginning of the 20th century. Part of ourselves could be outside space and time then interact, at least through dreams, with our mind, which is the result of our brain’s working according to the laws of classical physics, chemistry and biology.

At first sight it seems that Descartes was right when he described the world as dualistic: material and spiritual. But the discoveries Science made since the beginning of the 20th century show that it may be possible to build a bridge between these two realms: but this is another story!

To experience our own spiritual nature puts into question the profoundly materialistic cosmology we inherited from the 19th century. We’re no longer made of matter only; matter that wears out, cells that age; our core personality isn’t only derived from this reality that is perceptible by our physical senses. It has the needed properties to detach from it, to situate itself outside space and time. We’re led to conclude that the soul is real; we must only learn how to communicate with it!



Maybe some of them could be useful to others than me, even if they can’t trigger the “Wow” impression I lived. The dream-organiser doesn’t seem interested in objective events, but on subjective emotions, and therefore a dream can’t be shared with the emotions it triggered.

Below is a translation of some paragraphs of my book in which one of the characters – Matt – describes a dream I had and was part of the ones that convinced me.

– Dunne’s protocol has the merit to give a clear frame to ideas, to create a rigorous structure necessary when one works with subjective psyche.

– So you were able to obtain interesting results? asks Axel with interest.

– Yes, many times. But please remember they are difficult to share because I can’t transmit the emotion, the shock felt when one discovers this faculty. Feelings should be part of the experience.

– Try nevertheless!

– Ok then. I’ll choose one: an experience full of emotions and significance. I don’t know how it will affect you but I ascertain I was deeply stricken and convinced of the interest the phenomena deserves.

“Here it is… My mother passed some months ago, after a long and disabling illness difficult to live for both of us. Because of her independence, her strong personality, she couldn’t live outside her home. But she needed help, she was obliged to rely on others.

“One afternoon her nurse called me because she was very tired. Her physician was on vacations and his substitute clearly explained to me she was far from agonising, even if very disabled. This remark was important because my mother was tired with this life and her faith only forbad to actively put an end to it. Her nurse who knew her well, confirmed the physician’s diagnosis. Therefore I went back home to look after my family, relieved to know that a nurse was staying with her all night.

“In the middle of the night, at three a.m or so, a physician phoned and told me she passed, though nobody thought it could be probable. Stunned, I took rapidly some clothes without choosing them and rushed to sit with her for the rest of the night.

“While sitting near her I was overwhelmed with different feelings, one of them being culpability because I wasn’t near her when she died. After some hours I discovered I had my notebook on my knees; I must have taken it unconsciously. I found it weird because I usually take it only when attending lectures or when I think I could have time to work…

“I opened the notebook and was shocked! In front of my eyes were some notes taken four months ago while on vacations in Italy. It was a registering of a dream made according to Dunne’s protocol. In the dream, an unknown person was coming in my room to announce my mother’s death.

– You should admit there’s nothing very weird about it since your mother was very ill! Florian says in agreement with his critical mind, and even if he promised to trust us.

– That’s true! I felt culprit being on vacations, far from her as she wasn’t in good shape! But that isn’t all about the dream. In it, I wore rapidly beige trousers and a polo shirt of the same colour and, in a logic characteristic of dreams and perfectly illogical in the real world, I felt I was responsible of her death because of my choice of the polo shirt!

– I’m in admiration of the details you remember but they don’t convince me at all! mutters Florian.

– Wait! While reading my notebook I realised I was wearing exactly the same clothes than in my dream, four months ago!… And I was feeling culprit, as in the dream!

Florian seems pensive. “I understand why you said the experience should be personal. It could be understood like a series of coincidences, except if you live it yourself.”

This happened in reality, followed by many synchronicities. While going back home, in my car, a singer with the name of my mother – actually a rather rare one – was on radio, followed by a concerto with choir, orchestra and harpsichord written in the 17th century and that caused scandal because it introduced music instruments in a church and was joyful instead of sad. It was meant to bring about comfort after funerals because it was seen as the beginning of a new life. The concerto’s name: “Lessons of Darkness”!… Other synchronicities as powerful as these were experienced at the funerals…

Here are some other dreams registered while experimenting Dunne’s protocol.

Eastern 1996:

Dreamt of an artificial hen on which a man sticks real feathers.

The following day I discover this hen in a baker’s shop window.

Dreamt of a train accident.

The following day I read about a train accident in the newspaper.

April 23th 1996:

Dream. The late French president François Mitterrand is wearing black clothes and a black hat. He walks along my village’s cemetery. It is night. A beautiful woman with some grey curls comes in and bring documents assembled to increase Mitterrand’s power after his death.

Next morning the radio and the newspapers announce the publication of the president’s posthumous memoirs by a woman: Odile Jacob.

September 2000:

Dream. A helicopter fell on a tennis yard near a commercial centre: many injured.

The following day the newspaper show pictures of a helicopter that fell on a football yard.

August 29 2001:

Dream. I’m part of a group of people unknown to me, somewhere in the Swiss Alps. We admire the valley when a huge cloud of dust rises in the air: The left part of the mountain in front of us just collapsed! Some people are afraid but don’t move. Sometime later the right part of the mountain collapses in turn. This time everybody is afraid and rush for shelter.

Some days later: 9.11.2001!

September 9th 2001:

Two terrorists rush in the hall of a skyscraper. They are heavily armed.

A couple of days later: 9.11.2001!

I never dreamt of terrorists neither before nor after!

February 3th 2006:

Dream. I put some clothes on to visit a geriatric hospital. I’m not at ease because I wear trousers with braces on a naked torso. Would have preferred a T-shirt!

Encounter with an old lady with blue hair; she seems mentally abnormal. Her daughter comes to visit her; she has red hair.

The following day I watch a video where a woman with blue hair explains she is alcoholic. The newspaper publishes an article about 2 physicians that made an error in a geriatric hospital where an old man died. In the same newspaper there is a picture about an opera – Don Giovanni – in which the main character wears trousers with braces and his torso is naked!

Finally I’m convinced that coincidences only can’t explain all these facts! They can’t explain synchronicities either! But this is another story!

SIMULISM: an answer to quantum weirdness?



From the early times of computer science, one of the toughest problem has been to avoid programs that had no ending: that could potentially turn for ever. The first way to achieve this goal is naturally to work in a well defined and finite frame and with finite integral numbers.

The universe is quantified: only some defined properties are real and they evolve with integral numbers. Electric charges in particles or atoms are 1, 2, 3…n times the unit value and never whatever value in between. The energy of a particle is 1, 2, 3… n times the unit value and it seems to jump instantly from one state to another without ever being in between. A particle that seems to travel in space and time does so by bursting from one unit of space to another and from one unit of time to another without being in between… as if it lost its reality in one unit of space or time to recover it instantly at another unit of space or time. We would expect exactly these features if the particles were virtual and the software that calculates their properties would do so with integral units. For each unit of time the software would calculate the value of space where it should belong according to the properties it expressed and the interactions this particle had with its environment in the previous units of time and space. There’s no reason to imagine a concrete particle continuously flying from one place to another: only numbers reflecting the properties of a virtual particle would change at one address in the computer’s memory to be replaced by new numbers calculated as described and saved at the same place.

The simplest way to understand why it’s impossible to go beyond Plank’s length is because it’s the unit of length used by the software. The same applies to Plank’s time, Plank’s energy… The software that calculates the universe does so with well defined units of each property needed to build it.

In our real world we can’t understand how two entangled particles can interact instantly even if they are separated by such a huge distance that even light couldn’t transfer an information between the two. Quantum mechanics finds that the properties of entangled particles are strictly linked: if one has its spin in the “up” direction, then the other is forcibly of the “down” type. But quantum mechanics also finds that their properties aren’t defined before an observer measures them. Every particle seems to be in a superposition state: spin would be at once in the “up” and in the “down” directions, which is clearly impossible! Then how could we understand that when one of the entangled particles is observed, the other “knows” exactly and instantly what should be its property, even if there can’t be any communication between the two?

When viewed like virtual particles whose properties are calculated by a software and the result memorized somewhere, one can understand how in real world – which is, for us observers, the result of the calculations – we can observe instant interaction between two entangled particles even if they are separated in space with such a distance that even light can’t link them and explain a communication between the two. Indeed, space looses its reality in a sense: it becomes just numbers: coordinates for the software that has to calculate the particles’ properties. And the calculations are the same whatever the numbers of the coordinates that define where the particles should be.
The same applies to the understanding of instantaneous jumps observed in quantum mechanics. The properties are calculated, then refreshed at once in the memory location that defines each particle.

There are no slopes in the MicroWorld: only stairs! Energy changes take place suddenly, from one fixed value to another, at once, with no time shift. A particle does the same when changing its energy level (its position in space in relation to other particles). Sudden changes from one fixed value to another one.


Particles have no individuality, they are fungible because they don’t have any reality: they are just numbers recorded in memories. These numbers define specific states like electric charge, spin, mass… but the result – the particle – is just a bunch of informations, not a real thing! If these numbers are such and such… then they’l define a certain type of particle but no more a specific one that the number 12 can be different from another number 12!

What is specific though, is the sum of the properties that direct the particle’s behavior: its position in space, its movements in time… To illustrate the difference between the nature of a particle and its specific properties, let’s compare a particle with a share on the market.

Specific properties of a particle will change with time somewhat like the value of a specific share on the market with time. If a particle acquires energy it could accelerate; if your share is appreciated it’ll acquire more value… But if you sell your shares, you’l sell virtual ones; you wont sell the specific ones you bought before. Actually, they never existed as such; shares aren’t anymore made out of real paper… they’re just writings in computers’ memories; and that’s why they are fungible like particles are.

So there’s no specificity to find in the fundamental level of reality: the particles that make matter. But the specificity is acquired through the interactions between the particles and their environment: these give them their specific behavior; interactions give rise to atoms, molecules… and us! Our real nature is the result of interactions only!

Particles or waves can’t be differentiated from one another: they are FUNGIBLE like numbers! They have no identity.


Quantum physics describes an impossible micro-world in which particles have an infinity of states at once, between two that are the only possible ones in our macro-world. They are in a superposed state that can’t mean anything tangible in our reality! Quantum physics lets a particle behave as a wave distributed in a large space, then makes it collapse at once in a microscopic region of space when it interacts with another one!… This is because there’s two very different realms and a clear distinction between the two.

The micro-world isn’t one in which particles behave as micro things… but as numbers in wave type equations. As such they can occupy what, for us, is perceived as a large space, before collapsing after an interaction. They are just numbers involved in calculations, following the rules defined by the software that builds our reality. When an interaction happens, the equations give a result that defines the specific properties of the particle. It’s at this moment that it changes from the imaginary world, ruled by wave-type equations, to our realm in which we perceive particles. It’s at this moment that a specific number is calculated out of the superposition state and given as what we’ll perceive as reality. The micro-world is completely outside our perceptions: it’s made of virtual numbers processed by a software in a computer that isn’t of our world. Our reality is made of the results of the calculations only and is perceived in a completely virtual realm that has nothing to do with the real realm: the one in which are the computer, the software and… the Programmer and the Gamers, of course!

The universe could be composed of discrete units: addresses in a huge computer’s memory where the properties of what we see as particles or even quanta of space and time would be memorized.


Nobody can know for sure where a particle is before looking at it because it isn’t anywhere in our realm: it belongs to the software’s one in which it is represented as a bunch of numbers implicated in wave-type equations.

The equations evolve according to the software until an interaction takes place. When this happens, a specific calculation is made, according to the software and the state of the particle. The result of the calculation is perceived as the collapse of a particle to specific properties.

It’s possible that the state of all the other particles that interacted once with the one whose properties are calculated, are also taken into account… A hologram has such a feature: it takes into account all the waves that were interfering with one another when the hologram was made. Every piece of the hologram contains all the information that is incrusted in it, because it’s made out of waves and their interferences; a hologram is a-local, as what we find when we measure the state of entangled particles.

This holographic nature of reality and the hugely complex interactions that is inherent to waves interacting, could explain why the result of the calculations – the collapse of a wave in a particle – seems to be a probabilistic one… It would be for the same reason the result seems to be probabilistic when tossing a coin. We know, in theory, what should be the equations to solve and what numbers we should measure and put in the equations in order to calculate the result of each tossing! It is determined by different factors that we could, in theory, measure before and during the tossing of the coin and use them to calculate the result. But too many factors have to be taken into account for us to be able to do it in practice… The only thing we can do is to work with probabilistic equations to find the answer. For the same reason it could be that each particle’s collapse could be exactly calculated beforehand but that we can’t do it because we haven’t the tools that could make us able to take into account all these numbers, much too large for our calculation’s power.

When there are no interaction anymore, the particle disappears from our realm and resumes its evolution in the wave-type equations of the fundamental realm: the one in which are the computer, the software and… the Programmer and the Gamers, of course!

What we perceive as matter can behave as waves OR particles: never both at a time!


Everything seems to be under the influence of a malicious god or devil that plays and continuously mix the informations to keep us unable to decide exactly which path the particle travelled before being measured! One feels as if one plays a game whose rules are arbitrary chosen by its creator out of a logic that remains incomprehensible!

The Lord’s paths are inscrutable… and we shall do with it! Today it’s clear we should rename the “Uncertainty Principle” in “Indistinguishability Principle”: many experiments show this!

It’s interesting to remember how Heisenberg discovered his famous Uncertainty Principle: he had the intuition of it when he was struggling with contradictions between observations and the mathematics of Quantum Physics. He realized suddenly that we should change the way we interpret the observations! A particle seems to cross the measurement tool – a bubble chamber for example – because we see a continuous track materialized as bubbles. We imagine the particle entering at one end of the apparatus, cross it part to part and leaving it at the other end. But nothing says that it’s the same particle that entered then left the bubble chamber! We would reach the same conclusion if a mathematical function determined the particle’s properties at different places and different times. Nothing forces us to admit that it’s the same particle that we looked at all along its trip!

Actually we can’t identify a particle, put a mark on it, to assure that it’s really the same that entered the chamber then left it! Each bubble that let us see where a particle was is a new measurement and, in a way, creates the event that follows mathematical functions that we interpret as the trajectory of a particle with well defined properties. But nothing gives us the right to say that it’s the same particle that created each bubble: we couldn’t mark it with a paintbrush to assure that it’s really the same that crossed all the chamber!

It could be that what we see as only one event is the result of different ones! Quantum objects are fungible and indiscernible from one another. What we see as a real object could actually be a cell in a cellular automat and its properties as calculated from its associated memory that keeps – for the refreshment time of the grid – the numbers that’ll give it its properties. What we take as a real object crossing a chamber could actually be an illusion, based on the continuously changing properties of immobile cells in the grid of a cellular automaton.

“There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a ‘veiled reality’ that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments.”

From “Traité de Physique et de Philosophie”; 2002.
Bernard d’Espagnat is a physicist specialized in Particle Physics. He did his research in France at the CNRS and at the CERN between France and Switzerland . He has been a professor at La Sorbonne in Paris and in several american universities.


Einstein found why light’s speed is independent of the speed of the torch that generates it. And the answer is absolutely incompatible with the common sense! Here is a way to understand what happens:

Imagine an observer sitting near a railway track by night. He sees a train speeding up in front of him. You are in the train, looking at a strange and peculiar watch: it’s a watch made of two mirrors and of a particle of light, a photon. The two mirrors face each other and the photon is reflected back and forth between the two perfect mirrors. You’ll be able to count the number of times the photon is reflected and decide that when it has made, let’s say… one billion reflections, you could define a unit of time and call it: a “billiond”: it would be the time taken by the photon to be reflected one billion times.

As in a wristwatch that includes an oscillating spring which is the heart of it because when the number of oscillations reaches a precise number, then the watch adds a second and the needle will show that. One could do the same with the photon reflecting at a constant speed between the two mirrors. And that’s why the tool with a photon oscillating back and forth between two mirrors is a watch!

If the traveller in the train and the observer near the railway could look at the same watch – the one in the train – they’ll count the same number of reflections for a given time: say one billiond. But as the train moves, the photon that the observer at rest would see would travel a longer path that the same photon watched by the traveller. This is because the photon will travel one billion times the distance between the mirrors for the two observers, but the one near the rail-track will have to add the distance the train, and the photon with it, moved between the moment they both began to count the billiond and the end of the counting. Both agree with the number of reflections: one billion – but they disagree about the distance the photon travelled during one billiond.

But speed is distance divided by time, therefore time is distance divided by speed. The speed of light is a constant and the distance is larger for the observer at rest. Therefore the time will be longer for the observer at rest than the one he will measure for the observer moving with the train. Time will flow faster for the observer at rest than for the traveller! Time is no longer an absolute value that takes its origin outside space: it’s definitely bound to space. And the reverse is true since, for the traveller, it’s the observer near the rail-track that moves! For the traveller, time will flow faster than for the observer at rest near the rail-track! We live in a world in which our perceptions depend on our movements: they don’t have an absolute value, independent of movement and speed… Time and space get connected because movement takes place in space.

Since Einstein’s discovery, time lost it’s absoluteness and became relative. In the physics formulae at least, if not yet fully in our imaginary and our common sense!

Now how is it that time can be different depending on the observer’s movements?

In a computer there’s a clock that directs the speed of the calculations. They take place very orderly, one after the other, in pace with the clock. If there are many calculations to do it’ll take more time obviously and the limit will be dependent on the computer’s clock frequency which is fixed by the programmer and the hardware. The number of steps that the software can direct per unit of time is limited by the clock’s frequency: it can’t exceed it!

In our virtual universe space-time is calculated and the number of steps this calculation can do is limited by the computer’s clock frequency. The more movements to calculate, the more steps needed to do the calculations of course. The more informations to handle, the more steps needed also.

Einstein found that the mass and energy are two facets of a same reality. He discovered also that the mass of particles that have mass is linked to speed: it seems to us that mass grows with speed and becomes infinite when the speed of light is reached. This becomes understandable if mass and energy are the same and if they must be calculated as informations changing in the virtual universe’s space-time. The more informations change with movements in space-time, the more steps will be needed to do them and the limit will be the computer’s clock frequency of course.

To illustrate this, one can imagine a cellular automata which cells are four-dimensional Planck hypercubes. The state of each cell must be calculated in turn for each round of refreshment. The photon is the easiest particle to calculate since it has no mass: the software will have to take in account only spin, phase and direction of polarization. Planck’s length is nearly 10-35 m; in one second the photon will travel nearly 300’000’000 m in the void. The software will have to calculate the state of 10+43 cells at most: this would be the maximum number of calculation steps the computer can do at each refreshment of the cellular automata. If the mass-energy of a particle becomes bigger, then the number of calculations would become larger too and the number of Planck’s cells refreshed for each cycle will be less. We would see this as a slowing of time.

Nothing can go faster than light. In a Cellular Automata, no change in a cell can appear faster than the computation made according to the rules and its neighbors’ states! A change in a cell’s state is done according to its direct neighbors’ states. This puts a up limit to the number of changes that can take place: only one per generation and per cell.


Time and space don’t exist as such: as absolute, real properties of the universe. Instead they can change according to local properties of other objects moving through them. They are flexible: time can flow with different rates for different observers. Dimensions of an object can change depending on the movement of the observer because space also is flexible. They are just properties that can change with the nature and the behavior of objects that are described in the four-dimensional screen of the virtual universe.

The mass-energy of an object will distort space-time and this will be perceived as gravity. What we perceive as a distortion is the influence of attributes to the Planck’s cells in the cellular automata; influences calculated according to the software that drives the computer.

Space and Time can be introverted one in the other!


If we live in a virtual reality, then obviously the Game had a beginning, and what we perceive as space and time began with it.

What we’ll never know is if the Programmer succeeded in his goal at once, or if he had to try many times before creating a well-programmed universe that would evolve as he hoped, to become constantly richer in informations, creating galaxies, planets, life and intelligence… and that would seem to us bio-friendly. Maybe he had just some adjustments to do; this we could never know neither since the bugs could have been completely erased and replaced by new code and new results. Maybe he had to go through many trials and errors to find out what the constants should be! And that would be why they seem to us so finely tuned to lead to a universe bearing life and intelligence.

What’s for sure is that the bio-friendlyness we discover finds its easiest explanation in the virtual reality, of course. If so, the Anthropic Principle should be understood in its more radical interpretation, obviously! This answer seems the simplest between the other two: an infinity of universes and ourselves living by chance in the only one that combines the good numbers, or an incomprehensible and unexpected way to tie up all these numbers as:

1) to make them dependent from each other and

2) a way that explains how something could burst out of nothing!


The Earth is BioFriendly from the beginning.