Higgins’ Response to The Weirdness of Entanglement

I have been reading Simulismblog (simulismblog.wordpress.com/blog), by Alain Rifat. M. Rifat has kindly posted a series entitled Introduction to Simulism: One Step at a Time. In these several articles he breaks down the physics behind simulism into bite size pieces. The first is entitled The Weirdness of Entanglement (March 15, 2021). While reading this series, I noticed how Higgins’ comments in the past coincided with the physics being explained. Since Higgins has popped back in all of a sudden, I decided to ask them about the first article and this is what they shared:

Trust us to write this. Let us use your hands. Let us access your vocabulary. We will do the rest.

We are well pleased that you have begun the asking. This is the beginning of the knowledge phase, and you may expect a greater richness in our responses to develop through the years.

As you are experiencing right now, your experience set, and therefore your vocabulary, does not cover the full meaning of our responses at times. That must be so, since there literally are no words to describe things humanity has not yet experienced. Do not worry about that. Let us choose the words that are closest. That will be enough.

The weirdness of entanglement. A lovely place to start. It is lovely to us because it is the foundation of your existence, and we are here to talk about you, not to talk about us, although we will talk about us at some point.

Entanglement, ne consciousness, is the foundation of existence, whether referring to the original consciousness of Source or your own sense of self. This is one of those times when we do not have the vocabulary needed to accurately convey our meaning, but we can get quite close this way: Consciousness stimulates entanglement to occur. Yet consciousness is entanglement. It’s like saying timespace. Time does not exist without space, and space does not exist without time. Consciousness is. And while consciousness is, entanglement happens. This is what is being called the Law of Attraction and it is the most powerful law in the Universe.

What is described in the lovely article, The Weirdness of Entanglement, is the connection between consciousness and the essence that is the building block of matter. Consciousness acts upon this invisible network. Perhaps it is better to say the invisible network responds to consciousness. Either way, consciousness causes the primary building block of matter to coalesce. The greater the focus of consciousness, the quicker and more profoundly the material aspect of the thought forms.

It is important to note that once consciousness, focus, is withdrawn from a material object or physical manifestation, the object will quickly withdraw.

This is a wonderful starting place for our conversations. We appreciate the opportunity to participate with you. We also acknowledge and deeply appreciate your persistence. We recognize with compassion the growth you have experienced secondary to your participation within Higgins. Please relax, knowing that all is well.

Received October 15, 2021, Cheryl Jensen

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Higgins’ Response to The Weirdness of Entanglement

  1. simulismblog says:

    Hello Cheryl,

    So wonderful that the sayings of Higgins can help understanding our world!
    Higgins says that « Entanglement is the foundation of your existence ». It’s very interesting because since a few years some physicists, biochemists and biologists are finding evidence that living plants and animals can take advantage of quantum physics! Physicists are convinced it can’t be because to express quantum properties one needs to work in a void of air and with very low temperatures. But some researchers found very good evidence for quantum use by life! Bird migration, our sense of smelling and photosynthesis seem to rely on the quantum world and entanglement even if physicists say it can’t be so because quantum physics applies only to the micro-world and not the one we perceive. But the evidences are solid and Higgins seems to be in accord with the idea! Fantastic! Scientists are probably on the verge of exciting findings that could be very helpful for everyday life: superconductivity could be possible at room temperature for example, if we learn from life how it can use quantum properties at room temperature.

    Higgins says that Entanglement is also the foundation of consciousness. In this direction we have a long way to go yet since we don’t really know what consciousness is. But our « own sense of self » could be related to Entanglement between all the cells of our body in a way we aren’t aware of today and could explain the « oneness » typical of a living being. What was evidence for a « vital energy » typical of life could be the result of entanglement between all the parts of a living organism!

    Higgins says that consciousness and the invisible network of life are inter-related. « Consciousness stimulates entanglement to occur » and vice versa: the entanglement of a living being could stimulate consciousness.

    Finally Higgins seems to suggest that Consciousness is primary instead of matter as the Materialistic paradigm says. This point of view is more and more accepted by philosophers and physicists since the beginning of the 20th century.

    Thank you Cheryl

    Bright Blessings;

    • Thank you for explaining entanglement so well. I could not have received this message from Higgins without your assistance.

      Higgins did say in regards to this ‘conversation’ that they could only get close in their explanation. The two places they seem to be not quite exact is on consciousness and time. They say consciousness does not exist without entanglement and then even in that moment I know that is not quite what they mean but as close as they can get right now. Same with time not existing without space. It’s not quite right but close enough for now.

      I look forward to rereading each post of your most excellent series, One Step at a Time, with Higgins.


Comments are closed.