Welcome to Panpartism

The Road to Holognostics

A contextual introduction to the Panpartism framework

Before you read the essays that follow, I want to explain why I wrote them at all. A little context may help with the digestion, especially since my path into these subjects is not the usual one.  

I am not a professional scientist. I am not a theologian. I am not a philosopher. I don’t even have a degree. I’m a friendly neighbourhood handyman from England who just so happens to think... relentlessly.  

My lack of formal education wasn’t a choice. I was born with severe ADHD, the kind that makes traditional schooling almost impossible. I had intelligence that often outpaced my teachers, even as a child, and an insatiable hunger to understand how things worked. But I couldn’t function in a classroom. I couldn’t think inside boxes, couldn’t follow a curriculum, couldn’t stop challenging teachers to breaking point. I could get 100% on an exam, but I couldn’t remember to write down my homework, I couldn’t sit still. 

My mind behaved like an unstoppable analytical engine, constantly scanning, comparing, correlating. Every measurable factor in my environment was being assessed and related to every other measurable factor. Sleep has always been an issue, It never stopped — not for a second. That was simply my baseline.  

Now that ADHD is better understood, descriptions like this are becoming more common. It sounds intense, but when it’s all you’ve ever known, it’s simply life.  

In 2011, something happened: everything seemed to click. I felt as though I had finally reached the end of the line in my understanding of the universe’s physical functions. Science, causality, and the macro‑mechanics of reality all aligned in my mind. And then… nothing. No next frontier. No new itch to scratch. String theory felt like a void. Dark matter and dark energy were too far removed from my interests.  

So I did what many curious but misguided souls do: I wandered into the paranormal, the anomalous, the not‑yet‑explained.  

Once you wade through the noise, you eventually reach legitimate fields, with fascinating results: consciousness studies, phenomenology, psychedelic research, anomalistic psychology, near‑death experiences, remote viewing, comparative religion. These subjects are often dismissed, but they contain data — messy, subjective, inconsistent, but data nonetheless.  

The thing is, we all exist in this reality. Religious experiences, paranormal reports, and anomalous events — whatever they are — occur within that same reality. Whether they are “real” in the literal sense is almost beside the point. They exist as experiences, and experiences are part of the human dataset.  

So I wondered: what is it that we are missing?  

That question led me into one of my usual spirals. “Maybe we could take a basic idea from religion or the paranormal and stress‑test it under physics. Push it through relativity. Push it through quantum mechanics. Compare it with philosophy. Compare it with scripture.” I assumed the idea would collapse instantly under the weight of established science.  

My friends, who knew my tendency to disappear into thought experiments, saw me getting frustrated. One of them — a spiritual type — suggested I meditate.  

I laughed. With my ADHD, sitting still is not a natural state. But I also knew that Einstein, Tesla, Galileo, Newton — many of the greats — had their breakthroughs in moments of calm, not chaos. So I tried it.  

What happened in less than a second sent me on a ten‑year mission to disprove the idea that emerged. And I am only sharing now because I failed... Spectacularly.  

The deeper I went, the more coherent the connections became. Relativity didn’t break it. Quantum mechanics didn’t break it. Comparative religion didn’t break it. Near‑death experiences, anomalous reports, even the stranger corners of human testimony — none of it broke the idea. I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I wasn’t building a grand theory. I simply wanted to prove my own daydream wrong so I could move on with my life.  

But it refused to break.  

One of the major obstacles I encountered was not the data itself, but the scientific culture surrounding it. I have enormous respect for the scientific method — it is one of humanity’s greatest achievements — but the community built around it is still human. And humans cling to hypotheses. We defend our intellectual territory. We fear ridicule. We fear being wrong. Emotional and cultural pressures creep in, even where the method tries to exclude them.  

The day any idea of worth is finally disproven will be a day to celebrate. Strong foundations for truth do not need to be truth themselves.  

I do not doubt the scientific method. It brings us closer to truth than anything else we have. But I became painfully aware of its limitations. Only what is measurable is granted legitimacy. Yet the immeasurable is often where the next frontier begins. Is that not the point of science — to explore the unknown? To look at reality with the curiosity we were born with? Has the education of the method stripped away some of that curiosity and replaced it with fear of embarrassment?  

And perhaps the immeasurable is not a flaw in the hypothesis at all, but a reflection of the limitations of our technology. Our imaginations have always outpaced our instruments. Yet our current method often encourages us not to think beyond what we can currently measure. What a waste — to let our tools dictate the boundaries of our curiosity.  

I needed my own tool — something that could compare empirical, quantifiable data with qualitative, unmeasurable testimony. Something that removed ego as much as possible. Something that allowed subjective experience to be analysed without being mistaken for literal fact.  

What I developed was not a theory, but an angle of approach. I call it Holognostics. It isn’t perfect by any means, but it was what I came up with.

It can be summarised in one sentence:  

Every viewpoint from any source holds relevance, regardless of our conviction of its validity.  

This does not mean every experience is true. It means every experience reflects something — a relationship between reality, perception, and personal filtering. Relevance does not equal accuracy. It means the experience contains information worth comparing.  

We must be careful with belief. It is an important and beautiful part of the human experience, but it has its place, and it isn’t in science. Belief restricts progression. Belief is the gap between what we know and what we hope. That gap breeds bias, which breeds defensiveness, which traps us in the same cycles that have stalled inquiry for centuries. Forget belief. Stop filtering what you see through it.  

If what is measurable aligns with what we have already measured, then anything not‑measurable — anything rooted in subjective experience — must still be considered relevant in its own category. If only measurement is allowed to count as truth, then anything immeasurable is logically open to debate. Surely it must work both ways.  

This violates no empirical data. It removes the shame of being wrong, because anything “wrong” still acts as a pillar supporting truth. And it allows us to use subjective experience as a comparative factor alongside material measurement.  

This is the lens through which the following essays were written. Not as declarations, not as dogma, but as explorations — attempts to compare the measurable with the immeasurable, the objective with the subjective, the known with the experienced.  

Seeing as this subject crosses many boundaries of many disciplines, it can be told in different ways, in different languages, through different approaches. That is why I will include two introductory essays: one aimed at a scientific audience, and one aimed at a spiritual audience. Same story, different angles of approach.  

I have many thoughts, notes, essays, potential research directions, and testable suggestions. But what I truly need now is help from you — the experts in your fields. Let’s stress‑test this hypothesis together. Let’s throw everything we can at it. Many arms throw harder than one.  

Thank you for your time.  

 

The Handyman

MY WORK — IN MY OWN WORDS

Author's note.  

I am a thinker and learner, not a professional scientist. Science has a very specific method and language that I cannot hope to match, and my descriptions here are metaphorical rather than literal. My understanding of principles may be imperfect or even misguided, but I have tried to be as honest with my thought process as possible. I expect I may overstep at times, and I count on you — the experts — to challenge, correct, and refine these ideas.  

This essay began as a simple thought experiment. I make no claims of fact, and I am not presenting a theory in the strict scientific sense. My aim is to explore an idea and invite further thought. When a line of reasoning unexpectedly holds together — even loosely — it feels more like a responsibility than a presumption to share it and discuss it. What follows is offered in that spirit: open, curious, and provisional.  

To someone not from a scientific background, I might say:  

“what I did… just for fun… was to imagine that there really is such a thing as an ‘immaterial soul’, and then I simply reverse‑engineered it to see what happens.”  

Before we dive in, I am fully aware of the connotations of a word like "soul". I can almost feel you flinching as I write. If you wouldn’t mind putting up with it a little longer — at least until we find a better name — I use it descriptively rather than metaphysically, and it is necessary for the thought experiment.  

Firstly, we needed a definition for this “non‑material soul” that so many believe we have. We can't take every description literally as there exist hundreds. But we can filter out three baseline properties that crop up in all descriptions. Firstly, it is immaterial — not massive in nature, therefore massless. Secondly, it has no beginning or end. And lastly, as every major preaching agent of the soul would say, it is somehow part of us. 

I will take that and translate it as fairly and openly as I can. This “soul” is, in some way, related to our body and/or mind. We could go deeper and define this connection literally as interface/information exchange between our mind and this 'soul', but this isn't necessary for now.  

So we have the definition of our “soul”: massless, timeless and connected to us somehow. I am now fully prepared for it to crumble to dust the moment it encounters physical principles. The goal is to push it as far as it can go — and see if we can squeeze it through the scientific process and have it survive with at least some coherence — or if it crashes and burns against the mighty bastion of scientific scrutiny.  

 

Relativity and Masslessness

I might borrow Hawking’s approach — the way he used a simplified picture of particle pairs to explain his radiation — and offer a loose analogy for non‑locality. To a theologian, as I have done in my other essay, I could compare it to the “C‑frame” of a massless photon: not because I’m claiming it is a particle, but because the image helps convey the basics of relativity. The point is not to manipulate, only to make the idea easier to grasp, while acknowledging that what I’m describing requires a different kind of explanation.  

A massless entity has no proper time and no definable rest frame. Without proper time or localisation, it cannot occupy a single position or moment in spacetime; its entire null trajectory is, from its own frame, a single indivisible event.  

Relativity obviously has some very interesting things to say about mass. Namely that mass is required in order to experience time or distance, because only massive objects have timelike worldlines. A massless entity follows a null path, which has no proper time at all — meaning it does not “move through” time or distance in the way we do.  

So if this soul is massless and still somehow tied to our awareness, then whatever it is must exist as a non‑local field rather than a local object.  

And if it is non‑local, then from our point of view it would be everywhere, everywhen, always. And if every person has such a massless awareness, then all of these “souls” would occupy the same “place” (everywhere) at the same “time” (always), witnessing the same “thing” (everything). With no separation in time, space, or perspective, there would be no meaningful difference between them. In essence, what we call individual souls would simply be localised viewpoints of one giant… uber‑soul.  

 

Dimensional Structure

To describe a consciousness not bound to spacetime, I use a simple geometric recursion. The rule is simple each axis defines an infinite set of the axis below. 

- 0D: A point  

- 1D: Infinite 0D points form a line  

- 2D: Infinite 1D lines form a plane  

- 3D: Infinite 2D planes form space  

- 4D: Infinite 3D spaces form a timeline  

- 5D: Infinite 4D timelines define every possible outcome  

This provides a consistent way to describe a possible map of reality. Our bodies, being massive, experience each 3D configuration individually and sequentially. We call this movement time.  

In this model, experience is the interface itself. It is the active point of contact where the infinite, massless field of awareness (the MFA) meets the constraints of the massive, 3D body. Rather than the brain "creating" consciousness, the brain acts as a biological transducer, narrowing the "all-at-once" nature of the soul into a manageable, moment-to-moment stream. What we call "human experience" is simply the data-translation layer—the "desktop icons" of reality—that allows a non-local awareness to navigate a local, physical world. When that interface thins through meditation or death, the "user" simply sees more of the underlying "code" of the 5D field. This makes experience the primary bridge between physics and spirit: it is the measurable readout of an immeasurable source.

A standard 4D block universe describes a fixed causal structure, but fails to encapsulate the idea of free will. Don’t get me wrong — maybe free will doesn’t exist. And if that were the case, we can stay at 4D. Let’s go get sandwiches.  

But we are curious people, are we not? Let’s assume free will does exist and describe it using the recursion. In this instance, 4‑dimensional axes aren’t enough; we require a fifth to describe the different possible timelines that could occur. It’s not only causality taking the reins, but our conscious interaction acting as an override mechanism to change our 4D trajectory.  

Consciousness, Mass, and Perception

Neuroscience can map correlations between brain states and experience, but it cannot explain why subjective experience exists, how unified perception emerges, or why consciousness has a first‑person perspective.  

If awareness interacts with the MFA rather than being generated by the brain, then the brain not only processes data from the body, but also acts as a filter, a localisation mechanism, a receiver, and an interface.  

It would make sense that a body would filter out massless viewpoints in order to concentrate on survival. But if the mind could filter out bodily perspective to produce a better vantage from massless awareness, this would surely involve quietening the mind‑body so much that the massless viewpoint becomes more prevalent.  

It does sound an awful lot like prayer or meditation. Would being one with God witnessing the entirety of creation, or reaching nirvana/enlightenment, not fit the bill here? Psychedelic research also refers to interesting points about altered states.  

 

Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics gives us a surprisingly useful set of shapes to describe what the MFA might be doing. I’m not claiming QM proves any of this — only that its structure maps onto the idea in interesting ways.  

In QM, a system exists in a superposition of all possible quantum timelines until something forces it to pick one. If reality is built the same way, then the multiverse is a superposition of all possible timelines. The MFA would perceive this whole structure at once. The body would only ever collapse one thread into experience.  

Decoherence stops large objects from behaving like quantum systems. It also gives us a neat way to describe why we only ever seem to experience one timeline at a time. The body is decohered into a single classical path. The MFA, being massless, would not be decohered in the same way.  

Entanglement isn’t communication — it’s shared state across spacetime. If the MFA is unified, then shared state stops being spooky and just becomes expected.  

 

Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics

I am not proposing a grand unifying theory, nor suggesting that this framework replaces any established physics. Quantum mechanics and relativity each describe reality with extraordinary precision in their own domains.  

What a non‑local, massless perspective does offer, however, is a way to compare the two theories from a single conceptual vantage point.  

Relativity describes a fixed four‑dimensional spacetime in which events are arranged in a consistent causal structure. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, describes a landscape of possibilities — superpositions, branching outcomes, and non‑local correlations.  

This vantage point is conceptual rather than physical; it does not require modifying either theory. A mass‑bound body would experience a single classical timeline, consistent with relativity. A massless field of awareness would “see” the full structure of possibilities, consistent with quantum mechanics.  

My maths is not great, but this should at least give you an idea of this relationship.

ΨMFA = ∫{Γ₊(M)} exp(i S_pp[γ] / ħ) Dγ

with the point‑particle action

Spp[γ] := −m ∫γ ds, ds² = −η_{μν} dx^μ dx^ν,

This is the standard reparameterisation‑invariant action for a massive relativistic point particle.  

In the non‑relativistic limit (v ≪ c), this reduces (up to an overall phase) to the usual kinetic action.

The measure Dγ is the usual formal worldline/Feynman path‑integral measure over Γ₊(M), with reparameterisation invariance fixed by choosing proper time (or an equivalent gauge), rather than a fully rigorous constructive definition.  

This is the standard treatment used in the worldline formalism; it does not attempt to resolve the deeper foundational issues of relativistic path integrals, only to use the conventional gauge‑fixed form.

 

Anomalies and Related Domains

Near‑death experiences occur when brain activity is minimal or absent, yet conscious experience is reported. Common features include the absence of time, panoramic perception, and expanded identity.  

Remote viewing experiments have reported above‑chance results in some studies, though interpretations remain contested. Psi‑type phenomena, if they occur, would require some form of non‑local information structure.  

The model also intersects with philosophical discussions. Free will becomes movement between possible 4D timelines. Personal identity becomes a localised perspective of a non‑local informational field.  

In psychology and parapsychology, non‑local awareness, intuition, precognition, and creativity can be framed as interactions with the field or with alternative 4D paths. This includes the idea that imagination and inspiration may not arise from the brain generating ideas, but from accessing information already present in the field.  

Many creative professionals and scientists describe breakthroughs occurring in quiet, meditative, or psychedelic states — moments when perceptual constraints are reduced.  

Relativity’s block universe accommodates the field’s non‑local nature, and quantum information theory provides a vocabulary for discussing how information might exist independently of mass.  

 

Research Questions

Key questions include whether awareness can be modelled as a dual‑aspect system with testable links between brain activity and a non‑local informational field; whether reports from altered states or creative breakthroughs align with predictions about accessing non‑local domains; how mass‑based constraints limit interaction with non‑local information; whether multi‑angle perception in NDEs can be analysed against predictions about accessing more than one spatial perspective at once; and whether information theory can describe awareness independently of mass.  

 

Closing Note

Thanks for reading. As you probably can tell, I am no professional in any field, I am just a handyman who likes to think. I very much value the perspective of everyone, and any insight, feedback, questions, discussions or challenge will be warmly received... And if you need a shelf put up or a window fitted, I'm available for a quote.  

.Panpartism -- Spiritual

The Soul as Awareness: A Thought Experiment

I was getting tired of the old argument between science and spirituality — half the world seems to believe in one, half in the other, and the two sides rarely meet. Surely they must align somewhere.

So I designed a thought experiment, nothing more. I didn’t claim to have answers, and I expected it to collapse under closer inspection. But the exercise seemed worthwhile: to sketch possibilities, to notice similarities, and to invite dialogue.

 

My experiment was this:  

“Let’s assume there really is such a thing as an immaterial soul. Let’s put it through science and see what happens to it. Then if it doesn’t crumble to dust, we can see whether it matches any religious teachings.”

After inspection, across multiple traditions and beliefs, this “soul” had three recurring properties:  

1. It is immaterial in nature — we could say massless.

2. It is without beginning or end - timeless  

2. It is somehow accessible by or connected to our mind/body.

A common theme that runs through all traditions is that the soul is immaterial — this can be framed scientifically. It is not made of matter, and therefore massless. The other consistent theme is that it is somehow, perhaps not always, connected or accessible to our minds, as scriptures describe through altered states such as prayer, meditation, mantra, and similar practices.

Relativity has clear things to say about the state of masslessness. If something has no mass, it exists at the speed of light, C. At C, time does not pass in the way it does for massive bodies. From that vantage point, all of time and space are happening everywhere, from every angle, always.

This lightspeed analogy is a roundabout way of explaining the causal effect of non‑locality and time dilation — how relativity treats masslessness. A more technical account sits in the science essay, but here the C analogy is enough to sketch the idea of non-locality in more accessible language. This piece is full of analogy, used purposefully to convey meaning rather than to prove anything. It is not a literal claim about photons having consciousness; it is simply an analogy drawn from relativity.

If we wish to describe the viewpoint difference between a body of mass and a potential 'soul' at lightspeed, then our first analogy is already required.

One way of thinking about it is like this: imagine the body as an anchor, dragging a tiny part of consciousness down to sub‑light speed. From that vantage, awareness suddenly appears separated by time and distance — something the wider soul may not experience.

If you have heard of time dilation, imagine our soul to be at 100%. In this state, the time it takes to get to any location in spacetime would be zero. 

This could be described as being everywhere everywhen, always. The body, which is our metaphorical anchor, slows down the senses, brain, and local consciousness. Being slower than lightspeed forces us to experience reality in little steps, one piece after the next. We call this time, and it only exists for things with mass.

Spiritual ideas such as prayer to reach heaven, meditation to reach enlightenment, stillness to reach nirvana — could these not be seen as lessons in quietening the brain to see more from the massless, the divine? If we still our mind, can we talk to this soul? This soul which, from our perspective, can reasonably be described as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. These are the types of questions I wish to ask.

 

A Dimensional Framework

In order to describe timeless awareness, I developed a simple dimensional model based on geometric recursion, almost like a logical extension of block‑universe theory. the rule is, each dimensional axis defines an infinite set of the one below. 

Dimensional Structure  

0D — a point  

1D — infinite 0D points form a 1D line  

2D — infinite 1D lines form a 2D plane  

3D — infinite 2D planes form 3D space  

4D — infinite 3D spaces form a 4D timeline 5D — infinite 4D timelines form a 5D multiverse

In this framework:  

- the body experiences one 3D slice at a time  

- the life is the 4D sequence of those slices  

- the soul could be the massless, non‑local awareness filtered into a single perspective by the body  

- it sees all 4D structures and all possible variations of them,simultaneously  

- the full field of awareness might contain all possible paths — a 5D multiverse possibility, the universe in superposition

One analogy is to imagine a needle moving through a tapestry. The body is represented by the needle: three‑dimensional, solid, and bound to mass. As it passes through, it pulls a thread behind it. That thread is the life we have lived so far — not straight, but full of twists and turns that reflect our choices.

There are billions of these needles, each making its way through reality. From the body’s perspective, the needle can only see the bit of cloth it is passing through, and it can remember the thread behind it. But the soul could be compared to the view of the entire, already‑completed tapestry: every journey ever taken, and every journey that ever will be taken.

Across cultures, spiritual practices look very different — prayer, meditation, chanting, fasting, ritual, breathwork, trance, pilgrimage. Structurally, they may all be doing something similar: quieting the physical body enough for awareness to perceive more than the usual 3D slice of reality.

Extraordinary states of awareness appear in only two situations: death, when awareness may experience reality entirely from the higher‑dimensional soul, outside of time and space; and altered states such as prayer, meditation, ritual, chanting, fasting, trance, breathwork, or psychedelics, which reduce the body’s filtering and may allow glimpses of the wider field.

At lightspeed, relativity suggests all of space and time occur simultaneously. Enlightenment, heaven, and the divine viewpoint described in many traditions may be different languages for this same perspective.

 

Teachers and Traditions (Avatars)

The great, ancient teachers of civilisation can be seen as avatars — a metaphorical way of describing embodiments of divine awareness entering human form to guide, restore balance, and point toward timeless reality. The list below is not exhaustive; it simply illustrates structural parallels across traditions:

- Jesus — teaching love, forgiveness, and unity as structural truths of awareness  

- Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) — compassion and liberation from suffering, coherence through insight  

- Muhammad — emphasizing justice, mercy, and surrender to unity beyond time and space  

- Krishna — teaching that the soul is eternal, beyond birth and death  

- Rama — embodying dharma and virtue as structural order  

- Lao Tzu — describing the Tao as timeless flow, wu wei as effortless alignment  

- Hebrew prophets — pointing to Ein Sof, the infinite source, and expanded perception  

- Sufi mystics — unveiling unity through love and surrender  

- Indigenous teachers — stressing reciprocity with nature and ancestors as part of the same field  

In Hindu thought, this principle is expressed most explicitly through the Dashavatara — Vishnu’s ten incarnations: Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, and Kalki. Each avatar embodies a teaching: courage, humility, compassion, dharma, divine play, and renewal.

Different languages. Possibly the same architecture.

 

Morality, Coherence, and Forgiveness

If every person is a different perspective of the same underlying soul, then morality may be seen less as rules and more as structure.

Humanity could be compared to a body: each person like a cell. A liver cell is not “better” than a brain cell; each matters because each is part of the same organism. Likewise, each human perspective may be a slice of the same higher‑dimensional awareness.

Every dimensional axis has two opposite directions. Religious teachings often symbolise this as right vs wrong, good vs evil, light vs dark, heaven vs hell, compassion vs hatred, unity vs separation. These may be ways of describing orientation within the field.

Choices of the body of mass — greed, abundance, safety, sex, satiation. These drives are natural and necessary for survival. Or the choices of the soul — unity, compassion, insight, empathy.

Forgiveness may be the only mechanism that stops a destructive cascade. It could restore coherence to the shared field and widen the slice back toward the full field.

A scowl can cause ten more scowls which can cause a hundred more, spreading around the earth. Offer a smile instead and smiles will come out to meet it.

Your brother kills my brother — this can go on indefinitely. One act of forgiveness can stop a chain causing hundreds of deaths. Forgiveness may be dimensional in nature, not only a nice way to live.

 

Paranormal Phenomena

Near‑death experiences, apparitions, telepathy, precognition, shamanic journeys, visions — all seem to share features with mystical states:

timelessness, unity, panoramic perception. They are not proof, but they are consistent cross‑cultural reports, and may be describing similar states of awareness. These reports can be treated as data points — not evidence, but patterns worth noticing.

Even subjects such as ghosts, remote viewing, power of prayer, meditation anomalous reports, or channelled interdimensional phenomena become more understandable from this perspective.

 

The Golden Rule Across Traditions

Every tradition teaches it: treat others as you wish to be treated. Yet the phrasing and emphasis vary, offering a rich tapestry of moral insight:

- Christianity: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.”  

- Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”  

- Islam: “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”  

- Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” - Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.”  

- Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”  

- Confucianism: “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”  

- Indigenous traditions: reciprocity with people and nature; what you give returns.  

- Sikhism: compassion and equality; all beings as reflections of the divine. - Zoroastrianism: refrain from doing to another what is not good for yourself.

Within this dimensional model, the Golden Rule may be seen as more than ethical advice. If each person is a slice of the same awareness, then compassion is coherence itself. Reciprocity is not merely moral but structural: harming another slice destabilizes the shared field, while empathy aligns us with the deeper architecture of reality.

In this model, we should treat each other as we wish to be treated because, at lightspeed, we technically are each other. Harming another is quite literally harming yourself.

 

God and Timeless Awareness

Across traditions, divine qualities are often described as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Within the dimensional framework, these qualities may be understood through the metaphor of lightspeed.

Relativity shows that if something exists at C lightspeed, time does not pass for it in the way it does for massive bodies. The velocity‑based time‑dilation formula is: γ = 1 / √(1 − v²/c²)

At v = C, γ tends to infinity. From that vantage point, all of time may be happening everywhere, from every angle, always.

Einstein’s relation, E = mc², suggests that if m = 0, the entity exists at C (lightspeed). Our bodies, made of mass, experience reality slice by slice. Our souls, being massless, may glimpse the wider field — the timeless perspective.

This can be likened to many underlying cross‑religion similarities:

- Christianity: God as eternal, omnipresent, omniscient  

- Buddhism: emptiness as non‑local, timeless, spaceless  

- Hinduism: Brahman as infinite ground; Atman as localized expression  

- Islam: Tawhid as unity beyond time and space  

- Judaism: Ein Sof as infinite source  

- Taoism: Tao as timeless flow  

- Indigenous traditions: unified field of spirit; ancestors outside time  

Different languages, remarkably similar architecture.

 

Science and Spirituality Together

Science has achieved extraordinary things, but it focuses on what can be measured. Spiritual ideas, of course, thrive explicitly on the immeasurable. This is an issue. We need some mutual language.

For centuries, differences between religions have been emphasised, sometimes even weaponised. Yet when viewed structurally, they may be describing the same architecture of awareness. This is why religions themselves may provide better data than the institutions and churches that sprang up around them. Length of time from source information is obviously correlated with number of differing translations.

Science catching up could be what reverses that trend — the time of coming together. Funnily enough, the age of Aquarius is actually now — a playful coincidence rather than a literal claim. Could it be that science is finally catching up with spirituality? Can we stop wasting our energies against each other and finally look towards the future from all our different angles?

This thought experiment does not prove anything. It is only a sketch, a way of noticing parallels. Perhaps it shows that science and spirituality are not opposites. They may be two languages pointing toward the same reality: a massless field of awareness, timeless and whole, glimpsed through different cultural lenses.

 

Closing Reflection

I expected this framework to collapse under scrutiny, and perhaps it will. But even so, it highlights a possibility: that the divide between science and spirituality may not be absolute. Both could be describing facets of the same reality.

This is not offered as an answer, only as a way of noticing how descriptions might align.

When imagining from the perspective of the massless soul, I found myself led to a line of reasoning that made me begin to understand the irrelevance of circumstance when compared to the state of awareness. Rather than explain it to you, I would be interested to know if anybody else came to a similar notion. I won't say any more for now, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

…and I'm still happy to give you a quote if you need a handyman.