Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams on Matters of Life and Death and Higher Consciousness

by Grahame Mackenzie on March 22, 2013

 Is there life after death?  - Matters of Life and Death

  Connecting spirituality 

and psi phenomena

with quantum effects

 

We are living at a unique historical time in the history of mankind; a time when the old divisions between matter and spirit are clearly giving way to a newer, unified theory. A time when this information can be disseminated through the power of the Internet and easily researched by anyone willing to take the time to do so. 

Some scientists who have studied and researched matters of life and death have come to the conclusion that there is something happening, unaccounted for in classical science, and needs to be explained. It’s very important work and we can’t expect Cambridge University professors to break off from their busy schedules for anything less. Through dialogue with these professors, we aim to better understand this world that we live in and our higher consciousness.

In the hot seat today is a man who studied at Cambridge University and returned as a professor. His CV reads like an epic novel. He is one of the world’s top experts on the melting of our polar ice caps and leads the Polar Ocean Physics group studying the effects of global warming on sea ice, icebergs and the polar oceans. Professor of Ocean Physics at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP), University of Cambridge, Peter Wadhams Sc.D., has led over 40 polar field expeditions including five voyages to the North Pole in nuclear submarines. Amongst his many prizes, Professor Wadhams has been awarded the Polar Medal by HM the Queen and the Italgas Prize for Environmental Sciences. He was also a research assistant on the research ship “Hudson” on the “Hudson-70” expedition (1969-70) which accomplished the first circumnavigation of the Americas and has also held the post of Director of the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge. We could go on, but I think you’ll agree – we have a giant of a man in our presence today.

But why is Spirit Today interviewing one of the world’s leading experts on global warming I hear you ask? 

Well, that’s where it gets interesting. Very interesting indeed. Please read on to find out why… 

Enter Professor Wadhams

Q: Professor Wadhams it’s a great honour to have you take some time out of your busy schedule for this interview. Thank you very much indeed. May I address you as Peter? 

Peter: Certainly.

Q: Thank you. You have many research interests but what are you currently working on?

Peter: Mainly on the thinning of Arctic sea ice and the implications of its disappearance for the acceleration of global warming.

Q: You have researched this area extensively but we have done next to nothing about climate change for two decades. What would you have done 20 years ago that might have prevented the current situation?

Peter: In Britain 23 years ago we had Margaret Thatcher. For all her faults she alone of UK politicians actually understood climate change (she trained as a chemist) and tried to do something about it. She set up the Hadley Centre for climate modelling but was then kicked out over the poll tax. Since then we have had a hopeless succession of moral cowards who have done nothing. So I suppose the answer to your question, for the UK, is “I would have kept Thatcher in power”. More practically I would have gone, both in UK and worldwide, for a crash programme of nuclear reactor building, focussing on safe systems like the thorium cycle or the pebble bed reactor. Nuclear power is the only way to keep energy flowing to maintain an industrial society without emitting carbon, and it amazes me that people shy away from it. We can’t afford to.

Q: Are politicians and the public any more attuned to climate change than say 20 years ago? 

Peter: Politicians – no; they are ignorant and morally cowardly. People – yes. When I give talks on climate change I get really intelligent, thoughtful and concerned feedback from the audience. People really care, want to do something, and are very frightened at where global warming is going to take us.

Life and Death and Higher ConsciousnessQ: I see. You have led more than 40 important expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic, including five voyages to the North Pole in nuclear submarines. What’a a typical day like for you there?

Peter: There is no typical day in the Arctic. From a camp or a ship we go out and measure ice properties, or send out vehicles under the ice, or fly around doing measurements

Q: Any interesting stories from your trips there?

Peter: In 2007 I nearly died when an accident occurred on board a submarine under the ice. In fact two sailors died in an explosion, we had a fire, and we had to use breathing masks for three hours until we could surface through ice. It was terrifying. But it was interesting that in all the apparently dangerous field work I have done from ice camps, icebreakers, helicopters etc, I have never been nearer to death than when I was in what is claimed to be a very safe and comfortable system, the military submarine.

Q: I’m sure that was very frightening. Please tell us about your hobbies Peter, how do you like to relax?

Peter: I love to paint, write humorous songs for the guitar and go sailing, but have very little time to do any of those things.

Q: I’m also aware that you have a keen interest in the work of one of Britain’s most decorated scientists of yesteryear, Sir William Crookes FRS?

Peter: Yes, I have always been interested in psychical research. I joined the SPR at a very young age and was the research officer for Cambridge University when I was a student. It seems to me that this is one of the most important fields of science, shamefully neglected and censored through the complacency and moral cowardice of establishment scientists.

CrookesQ: Yes, it’s a very important area of science. What kind of man was Sir William Crookes? 

Peter: A great man. He discovered thallium, did basic research on cathode rays (discovered “Crookes dark space”) and radiation (Crookes radiometer), was President of the Royal Society, and of course had the courage to test a medium and honestly state that he found her phenomena genuine.

Q: Could you summarise his work?

Peter: As above! As well as testing the medium Florence Cook, he did a lot of careful experiments on the medium Daniel Dunglas Home, building apparatus that Home had to influence (bending levers, pulling springs) and finding that he did so. Crookes wrote a set of papers which are completely ignored though have never been shown to be false, and never explained. This should be a source of shame for modern scientists.

Q: Yes, he carried out important experiments into the psi phenomena finding evidence in favour of survival, but later his good character was discredited. Could you talk about what he was accused of and if there is any substance to the accusations?

Peter: After he was dead, with typical cowardice, someone accused him (without evidence) of having had an affair with the medium. This is impossible since Mrs Crookes was present at every seance.

Life and Death And Our Higher SpiritualityQ: So in your professional opinion a number was done on him?

Peter: Crookes, like so many scientists before and (especially) since, was shamefully defamed when he should have been supported and praised.

Q: How far do you think that scientific research into so-called “paranormal” events has progressed? Enough to formulate a hypothesis, possibly leading to a theory?

Peter: Possibly the best hope of a theory lies in the work of Brian Josephson (Nobel laureate in physics) who seeks to connect spirituality and psi phenomena with quantum effects.

Q: Yes, Professor Josephson is doing some very interesting work indeed. So, what in your opinion are the main obstacles to this research?

Screen Shot 2013-03-20 at 14.52.34Peter: 1. Total absence of research funds to support the research or any career structure for those scientists brave enough to do it. 2. Impossibility of getting even conclusively positive results published in a mainstream journal. Results is a Catch 22 – “this research can’t be anything but fraudulent because it isn’t published in a mainstream journal; because it can’t be published it must be fraudulent”.

Q: Very strange. I’m curious to know why the established view across all scientific disciplines is to deny the existence of anything paranormal? 

Peter: Fear of having one’s settled world view upset. Desire not to have to consider awkward phenomena that might render one’s own research questionable. Conviction that we now know everything (similar to view held by physicists in 1890).

Q:What made you disagree with that established opinion?

Peter: Reading papers on psychical research, particularly the Journals and Proceedings of the SPR (going back to the 19th century). Clearly something is going on.

Screen Shot 2013-03-20 at 15.22.56Q: I can hear our readership applauding you. Clearly. And like climate change, we’re late to the party. So, are there any parallels we can draw from the lack of acceptance on climate change issues and the lack of acceptance for psi phenomena?

Peter: Yes, fear in both cases and desire that everything should stay the same, always. 

Q: Peter, have you yourself ever had any personal experience with something that you might classify as paranormal?

Peter: Yes, I have precognitive dreams occasionally, and in one case a very vivid one that preceded an unusual event by 10 days. This was published in “Paranormal Review” (newsletter of the SPR), and it was such a clear case that I feel we have to really rethink our concepts of time and causality, if an event can be foreseen in detail 10 days ahead.

Q: So, if you were personally convinced beyond any doubt of the existence of these phenomena, would you go public in the various media with your acceptance of the evidence which led you to this conclusion?

Peter: I hope I would be courageous enough. In fact I think I probably would, since I am so near retirement that “they” cannot destroy my career prospects since I have none!

Q: Great stuff. Many researchers in this field say that existence of psychic phenomena has been proven over and over for more than a century and that the media, along with powerful religious and political entities, are fighting the revelation of these findings. Do you find this to be the case?

Peter: Yes, except that the chief enemy is conventional science (which ought to be the strongest supporter of psychical research but is in fact its chief enemy)

Q: I understand Michio Kaku says on TV that you have to believe him when he says that there is not only one set of parallel universes  containing infinite numbers of them but four different varieties each filled with infinite numbers. Do you accept this?

Peter: Not really, no!

Q: If there are so many parallel universes accepted as existing by cosmologists when they admit no communication with any is possible (which by definition puts them outside the scope of science) why do they refuse to accept some could be worlds of spirit – especially since a huge amount of experimental evidence shows they do exist?

Peter: I am convinced that a spiritual realm exists which is of more central importance to the progress of the universe than the physical realm, but I don’t think that it can be linked to any of these “many worlds” hypotheses.

 

Okay, we are nearing the end of this interview Peter, but before we wrap it up we have ten random, rapid-fire questions in 60 seconds. As before, I’m not going to be easy on you here, are you ready?

Peter: Yes.

Okay, deep breath, here goes..

Spirit Today

No.1: What was the most difficult class you took whilst studying at Cambridge? 

Peter: Elementary crystallography.

No.2: What book are you reading just now?

Peter: The Mystery of the Last Supper by Sir Colin Humphrey – a brilliant piece of scientific detective work on the date of the Crucifixion.

No.3: Describe yourself in three words?

Peter: Englishman rejecting Englishness.

No.4: If you could know the answer to any question, what would it be?

Peter: What happens when we die.

No.5: Do all questions have answers?

Peter: As a scientist I would say yes.

No.6: When was the last time you were awake at 3am?

Peter: Today and all last week. I was at a meeting on the west coast of the US and haven’t got over jet lag.

No.7:  You’re having a dinner party and can invite five people, past or present, who would you invite?

Peter:The four evangelists and Sophia Loren

No.8: You’ve got a time machine and can travel to any date you wish. What date do you punch in and why?

Peter: 60 million years ago, to look at the asteroid hit that eliminated the dinosaurs

No.9: Where are memories stored?

Peter: No idea, but not only in the brain, I suspect

No.10: Any final thoughts Peter? 

Peter: No more thoughts!

End of Interview

……

 Well, I think a mighty big ‘Thank you’ goes to Professor Wadhams for this milestone interview. It’s a very rare opportunity indeed to have the chance to grace the same page as a man of this calibre, truly one of the greats Britain has ever produced.

 What will you take away from this interview?

People really care, want to do something, and are very frightened at where global warming is going to take us. – Professor Wadhams (talking about global warming)

or..

 “Clearly something is going on”. – Professor Wadhams (talking about the existence of psi)

or what about this..

 “It seems to me that this is one of the most important fields of science, shamefully neglected and censored through the complacency and moral cowardice of establishment scientists”.  - Professor Wadhams (talking about psi research)

 What is going on in our sciences?

Dialogue is important if we are to take our Earth into the next century in good condition, as well as make the spiritual advances we need to progress. And big jobs call for big people, special people like Professor Wadhams.

Please leave your thoughts below. I’m sure Professor Wadhams would be very happy if you were to comment. 

 

{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }

George Barker August 11, 2013 at 11:03 am

To James,
That was interesting. In my early “teens” I used to hear orchestral music in my head whilst walking to school for a year or two.

Reply

James S August 11, 2013 at 6:13 am

Hello Norman Hutt,

Alan said in his opinion that most mediums are either fraudulent, or they overrated their abilities. I was concentrating on the latter, not the former possibility here, because I believe myself that could be a fair assumption too. Most people have at least some paranormal abilities, but most of the time these events occur sporadically, usually when the other person isn’t trying. There are such a great deal of paranormal phenomena that a person can experience, and not all of these abilities make one an effective psychic or medium. It’s even possible (and very likely in my own opinion) that the majority of people who believe they may be psychic or have mediumship abilities probably do have some paranormal abilities, but that doesn’t make them actual mediums (It appears there’s a difference between a psychic and a medium too). Some of those people could actually have some mediumship abilities too, but they may be not be very effective at it.

I havn’t spoken much about my own paranormal experiences so I’ll start here, though I’m not sure if some of these would qualify as actual paranormal experiences. I remember as a kid (I’ll guess from about 7 to 15 years of age) that I would have an uncanny ability to know when the phone was going to ring a few seconds before it actually rang. It was an odd sensation I would feel, like a very loud ringing/humming sound in my head, and this would last for about two to three seconds until the phone would actually ring. This feeling never came about me when the phone didn’t actually ring, so it appeared at times that I could sense when the phone really would ring.

Though these events were common, they occured sporadically, with me having little/no control when they would happen, and usually without me even thinking about the phone ringing. Sometimes I’d get those odd sensations when a person was coming near me too, without me actually hearing, smelling, seeing them, or feeling any type of vibrations from them walking towards my direction.

The latter phenomena was much more rare for me than the phone incidents. I have a few more things that I’ve experienced, which were much more impressive than this, but I’ll mention these in other threads on here. I’m not sure what one would call the phenomena I’d experienced above though, or whether if they were actual paranormal/esp events or not. I don’t consider myself to be any type of psychic, medium, clairvoyant, etc, and it has been many years since I’d experienced any of the odd events I’d mentioned above.

Reply

James S August 10, 2013 at 7:47 am

Hi Norman Hutt,

Thank you for introducing me to that site since I’d never heard of it before. It’s a bit different from what I’m used to, but it seems like one of the better paranormal discussion sites out there. I was looking for new waters to debate the paranormal because the site I currently do most of my posting on, the sceptics won’t address any of my issues. The site has become infiltrated with many low level sceptics whom are virtually impossible to debate. I refuse to debate people who can’t even spell basic words correctly, or who use the pink unicorn arguments against me.

I crafted a post on that skeptico site which took me considerable time to create on one thread, like more than an hour, to only have my computer lose Internet service briefly right when I went to hit the submit post tab. That sucked, but maybe I’ll try again next week to post a decent rebuttal on there.

I feel that my efforts have paid off to some degree, because now I have formerly psi indifferent people viewing Zammit’s and Roll’s sites, away from the religious jungle. Some people on the sites overwhelmed by sceptics have thanked me privately for providing them with afterlife information too (even a hardcore sceptic once in a great while), while others have thanked me for standing up to the skeptical bullies that frequent those sites. People have to be interested enough to do the research, so until that occurs all efforts to convince people of the facts we’ve been discussing will be futile.

Reply

Norman Hutt August 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm

Hi James S

That site caters for debate on most subjects paranormal, but unfortunately there was very little interest in my main interest, physical mediumship. It was very time consuming reading through the site, and I gave up in the end! I liked the fact they have a Haven section where outright sceptics are not allowed to operate, but questioning is. When I left the site, there were only a couple of hard core sceptics operating and they were not very effective.

Well done for having the patience and courage to stand up to the sceptics and for your interest in supporting the validity of your research.

Reply

James S August 10, 2013 at 7:21 am

Hi Alan,

Your comments above concerning the attitudes of researchers involved in paranormal experiments has always made me wonder about something. Many scientists had started off with a sceptical attitude concerning paranormal phenomena, but yet some remain more sceptical than others despite having access to the same experiments and data. It appears that people with negative attitudes (like you’ve stated above), or who tend to be egocentric are the researchers who seem to perpetually deny the reality of psi. Will people like Dr. French even believe they’re ‘dead’ when that inevitable time comes?

I’m on the side that more scientists should employ a fallibilist position vs that of a sceptical one. The biggest difference between fallibilism and scepticism (for the most part) is the fact that fallibilists do not suspend belief without evidence like sceptics do. Sceptics in my opinion create very restricting metaphors for themselves, thus not allowing them to abandon a faulty null hypothesis as easily as a fallibilist would. You can still employ reasonable scepticism being a fallibilist, but it’s not quite as mentally constricting as hardcore skepticism. Many sceptics seem to think that science should be a certain way and stick with that assumption. We won’t be communicating with alien life any time soon, and why? Well, I’d say thank a sceptic for this.

Pertaining to the James Randi paranormal challenge it appears that the difference between Zammit’s and Randi’s contracts are who gets to make the final decision. Perhaps it could be justifiable for some to think that Randi could be a fair and unbiased judge, but looking at his past concerning his attitude on paranormal phenomenon I’m not so sure about that. I’ve watched quite a few of the amazing Randi’s videos exposing fraud, and it appears that he targets easy prey. Personally I’m not a fan of either of these challenges, and let’s face it, nobody is getting money from either side here. I don’t feel that Victor has to worry about anybody conquering his sceptical challenge because it’s become obvious to me that the phenomena he defends is very real. The Randi challenge on the other hand appears to be a different ballgame, and I’ll leave it at that.

I wasn’t aware of being able to present a civil case for an afterlife, and I have a few questions concerning this issue. What would the implications be if a civil case was won demonstrating the reality of an afterlife? Could winning a civil case have a similar effect to a paradigm change in science favoring an afterlife? Can courtroom logic help to verify a hypothesis concerning the natural sciences?

Reply

Norman Hutt August 6, 2013 at 7:07 pm

Hi James S

Good questions. I take it that by scientists you mean those who have been trained and experimented with the scientific method, but are widely varied in their qualifications and specialities. In all cases they should examine all the facts, then the conditions, then form a hypothesis which fits the facts with no internal contradictions. Or something like that. Science is constantly changing to keep up with new information, it’s not set in stone.

Your first question: I don’t think there is much that ordinary citizens can do to force mainstream scientists to properly look at paranormal evidence at the moment. People like yourself are doing a great job opposing their dogmatism and arrogance, but they are often sitting in well paid jobs which depend on common assumptions about the nature of the world. Their jobs and reputations are at risk if they go against the tide, and scientific paradigms would have to change considerably to accept even a possibility of the paranormal.

Second question: I think that many scientists, psychologists, and parapsychologists are now chipping away at the foundations of purely materialist science which is very encouraging. If you have visited the Skeptiko site you might agree that the discussions are mostly dominated and won by those in favour of the paranormal in general, mostly topics which indicate that the mind is separate from the brain and body. These proponents are usually very intelligent and well-read in the evidence of the paranormal, but there comes a point at which there’s not much more to be said, it is opinions one way or the other. The sceptics don’t move at all to engage the facts.
The best hope for fair representation of the paranormal lies with the ‘hard’ scientists, particularly physicists, who are dedicated to finding and analysing facts with no preconceptions. How long this will take depends on the willingness of mediums to allow those in the spirit realms to work through them to provide evidence for enlightened scientists to evaluate. This has been done in the past, and what was done then can be done again.

Regards, Norman

Reply

James S August 6, 2013 at 11:48 am

It’s become fairly obvious that mediums will fail tests set up by skeptics because in order to eliminate the possibility of cold reading or fraud those tests don’t allow the mediums to obtain a feel for their sitters. This was one of those tests set up by Chris French. It appears however that mediums perform rather well in controlled settings when they’re set up by psi proponents. Some of the mediums claim that these skeptics (brights:) have no incentive to understand how mediumship works, but rather they’re only interested in debunking the phenomena.

Frankly I’m rather tired of all of the science fiction being presented to us in magazines in relation to these multiverse ‘theories’, where the design of our universe came by chance due to endless possibilities inevitibly creating our own universe. However, if anything pertaining to the ‘paranormal’, such as near death experiences are lucky enough to make it in such respected magazines, it is to debunk them. I agree with Bernard Haisch when he states that there’s more evidence for a tailor made universe than one which came by chance, but yet the latter option represents the current null hypothesis.

Skeptics keep telling me that science would be willing to embrace any phenomena with enough evidence to support it. Skeptics keep telling me that the null hypothesis by itself should never be used to debunk an alternative hypothesis, but yet they repeatedly do this anyways. Skeptics keep telling me that nobody with paranormal abilities has ever passed a test in a controlled setting, but yet when I present papers from the Arizona experiments confirming positive results for psi, they claim that the people involved along with the protocols used were faulty. However, they hold the James Randi challenge in high regards despite the fact that Randi is biased, and is not a scientist. I’m actually considering giving up debating skeptics, but I still get a sick feeling in my stomach knowing that the skeptical viewpoint rules the net and air, and that they continue to poison peoples minds from discovering these wonderful truths.

I have two questions since scientists on these threads would know more than me about these matters. My first question here is whether there’s anything ordinary citizens (aka taxpayers) can do to force close-minded individuals within the scientific community to either shape up or get out. (seriously I’m that ticked about the arrogance of many people in mainstream science) My second question here is whether proparanormal scientists are in a better position today than they were many years ago, and will it be long before the paranormal gets fair representation?

Thank you to anybody who can help me with those few questions,
James

Reply

Alan Middleton August 9, 2013 at 5:21 am

James S,

Let us start by asking if conventional science has a basis for doubting the existence of psychic abilities.

My current view is that ninety-five percent, that’s nineteen out of twenty mediums, are either fraudulent or are mistaken in their ability to do what they claim.

The remaining five percent have a range of abilities which vary from poor, to very good. People like John Sloan and Leslie Flint are people with highly developed natural abilities. Even good mediums have bad days, and the attitudes of the sitters and observers can influence their work. In the case of observers with negative attitudes, communication would be blocked.

I believe that some well-known mediums that researchers appear to be drawn towards are subject to ‘own mind’ contamination of their communications. These mediums produce a combination of ethereal communication and their own prejudiced sub-conscious thoughts.

For this reason, statistically, researchers like Doctor French have a far stronger case than I can offer.

Doctor French was an observer at one of the Scole Experimental group sessions. I understand that he claimed that the phenomena he witnessed were the product of conjuring tricks. This was despite the fact that professional magicians who had previously also witnessed events in the basement at Scole stated that they could not duplicate what they had seen.

Brigitte Rix also witnessed these events on more that one occasion and has personally confirmed to me the reality of the physical presence which are attributed to ethereal people. Brigitte has a great deal of experience in sitting with various mediums and has a tie wrap which went through the arm of the medium Stuart Alexander and also the chair to which it was holding his arm. The tie wrap is still in its closed position.

Michael Roll reports the apport of an arm chair, complete with a sleeping cat, to a location outside of a sealed séance room.

Arthur Findlay reports the apport of a watch from a séance table inside a sealed room to the pocket of a coat outside in the hallway.

Any researcher in this field has to have a positive attitude which will assist and not block the medium and those on the second frequency who have their own considerable difficulties in achieving communication with people inside the time stream.

It is my intention to deal with all these matters in an article devoted to mediumship and extreme mediumship.

I believe James Randi offered a reward of a million dollars for proof of psychic phenomena. The Australian psychic researcher and lawyer Victor Zammit states that he has looked at this contract and in his professional opinion, it is a fraudulent contract. The conditions are such that it would never be paid out.

Victor Zammit also states that a civil case for the existence of the afterlife where the level of proof has to be fifty-one percent, could be won.

It is my opinion that there is a growing sympathy for the extension of science into other frequencies of existence. This cannot be expressed by individuals where it would conflict with the opinions of the scientific establishment, particularly if they had to confess to teaching totally illogical theories like the ‘Big Bang’.

For this reason, scientific sympathisers have to keep their heads down to sustain their prospects, and not be labelled as ‘mavericks’.

Science will not embrace the phenomena when there is enough evidence to support it.

Science will only embrace the phenomena when its own position becomes untenable.

We must therefore work towards that end.

Alan Middleton

Reply

Norman Hutt August 10, 2013 at 2:08 am

Alan

I am rather disturbed by your statement that only one medium in twenty is not fraudulent, or are not mistaken in their ability to do what they claim. Mediums, whether mental or physical, by definition claim to produce communication with the spirit world or vibration, and provide survival evidence from loved ones.

So are you saying, on average, that if twenty Spiritualist Church services with different platform mediums are attended, only one medium is genuine and not misguided, who you rate as from poor to very good? I remember many years ago Stewart Alexander bewailing the low standard of mediumship, but is it really as bad as you indicate? I’m not aware of the national picture, and I must say that locally the standard of evidence has dropped considerably from the time I began investigating.

Reply

Alan Middleton August 10, 2013 at 3:38 am

Norman,

I have had some very bad results from mediums which justify the claims of people like Darren Brown that they are cold reading. The Spiritualist Training College at Stansted Hall was set up to overcome this problem. Mediums from this college have to demonstrate their ability to enable validated communication.

Even so, development of these skills takes a considerable amount of time and dedication. In the case of circles, these can take years to develop, with many sessions yielding little in the way of results.

Some older mediums take younger people under their wing and help them to develop.

The problem is the amateur who thinks they have psychic abilities when they are actually using intuition based on the feed back they are getting from the individual.
The information which is given is non-specific and acts like a news paper horoscope. It focuses attention like a search routine, until it the information given is matched.

The miss matches are then ignored, and the person thinks they have had a good reading. They are told things like, “When you see a feather you will know he is confirming this.”

Feathers are always in the environment, we just do not normally focus on them.

Accredited mediums within the spiritualist churches are not the problem, although as you will know, they can be very variable according to the conditions. I had a private reading when I was eighteen, and was told that she could not read for me because I was ‘hostile’. This was at a spiritualist church. I was not hostile; I was just not giving her any useful feedback.

Having said this there is a background of pseudo mediums around the world who give good mediums a bad name. Good psychic ability is not a common occurrence.

This is my current opinion.

Alan

Reply

George Barker August 10, 2013 at 3:54 am

I agree with Norman.

The Professor must have picked up some duff statistics from somewhere to say that 95% of platform mediums are frauds.

Or perhaps his definition of frauds includes mediums who waffle on with one recipient all the session or those who ask questions instead just telling what is shown to them (e.g. instead of “I am shown a church” they ask silly questions like are you getting married? or are you a vicar?), or whose mediumship is so undeveloped as to make them unfit to be performing in public, in which case he could be somewhere near.

It is a great pleasure to occasionally see a well developed clairvoyant at work.

Reply

George Barker August 10, 2013 at 4:04 am

Sorry I have attributed the fraud medium statistic to the Prof. instead of to Alan, probably because it’s in the Prof’s page and I’m a bit careless.

Reply

Jo Bradley August 11, 2013 at 1:36 am

I have to say I’m a little disheartened too Alan by your statement that 95% of mediums are either fraudulent or mistaken in their abilities. I do however accept that some are fraudulent but not to the estimated percentage that you believe and of course we have mediums that demonstrate far too early on in their development.
I say again, we live in an ever increasing ‘fast’ world and everyone wants everything now and of course development with any form of mediumship cannot and should not be rushed.
Most platform mediums out there in the spiritualist church’s are SNU trained and rubber stamped by them to serve the church’s, which is worrying given the fact they were set up to address this problem.
Maybe it highlights the fact that there are NO experts on this side of life and young mediums should listen to the guidance of their guides and only their guides.

Reply

Jo Bradley August 11, 2013 at 1:38 am

@ George Barker, we all knew who you meant sweet, really enjoy reading your contributions on this fantastic website :)

Reply

Norman Hutt August 12, 2013 at 12:17 am

I do agree with Jo about the importance of listening to the guidance of your guides.

Long ago, a Church platform medium recruited me to train under her to develop mediumship for myself in her open and private circles. Her friend and mentor ran a Spiritual Centre, and believed that everybody could work with Spirit and become a medium given training, and was passionate about it. The method involved saying prepared phrases and waiting for something to come in your head from Spirit at the end of each phrase for evidence. Your guides know you it was said, even if you don’t know them. This can be surprisingly effective at times in fact, but long-term I don’t know of anyone who has stayed the course unless they ‘know their guides’. I was ‘given’ many guides by mediums, but have no idea if any of them were real. I would never even consider being a medium unless I was confident in my link with guides. There is a danger of ego and self-deception taking over.

Reply

Jo Bradley May 15, 2013 at 7:56 am

Thank you for your response Michael.

Reply

Michael Roll May 15, 2013 at 3:06 am

Jo, thanks for this input. We have to separate the published results of scientific experiments from mathematical papers that have to pass the peer-review system before they are published in a serious scientific publication. For example, like Sir William Crookes published in 1874 in The Quarterly Journal of Science. Results of repeatable experiments carried out by teams of top scientists will always be published in order to get a reaction and therefore advance our knowledge of the universe. Nobody would dare accuse Sir William Crookes of being a fraud all the time he was alive. It was only after he died in 1919 that the terrible attack on him started from his peers who start from the base that the mind dies with the brain. We are talking about orthodox scientific teaching across the world. This is why it is so vital to repeat the Crookes experiments with a contemporary materialisation medium using the sophisticated recording equipment that we now possess. I tried to get this off the ground in 1983 when I took part in the Rita Goold experiment where every time Rita gave a demonstration six recently deceased people fully materialised proving they had survived the death of their physical bodies. All six had already been checked out by their family members. The full reports are on my website: http://www.cfpf.org.uk
Sir William only had just one etheric person, Katie King, materialising at his experiments. Imagine the world-wide reaction there will be when millions of people across the world will be able to see on film “dead” people being physically reunited with their loved ones who are still on Earth.

Reply

Jo Bradley May 13, 2013 at 8:32 pm

Photographs of my work are accessed at various places on the internet, and indeed I was asked recently for permission to display some of them at a conference on all forms of mediumship in Norway, which I gladly agreed to. Please feel free to share any of them on here my friend, if you think they would been of interest to your members. My question still remains the same, how exactly would a serious investigation help to bring the ultimate proof of survival and for it to be accepted as fact, if there is no chance whatsoever of results going into serious scientific publications?

Reply

Jo Bradley May 13, 2013 at 6:30 am

There seems little point for any scientist or medium to put their reputation on the line, when there is no chance of results from a scientific investigation, into any form of mediumship ever being accepted or their results being published, is there?

Reply

Alan Middleton April 9, 2013 at 4:41 am

Knowledge of the Pearson Matrix makes the mind matter interface simple to explain.

The key to understanding this is the Young’s two slit experiment and quantum photon entanglement. Also the knowledge that everything that appears to exist is the product of evolved and then designed analogue computer software systems.

These are located in the filaments of the Matrix. They are complex vibration patterns and work with many layers of interacting and resonating frequencies. The power source for the system is the surging of the primes surrounding matrix filaments. The power is totally mechanical vibration. Nothing else actually exists.

Since digital computing is very sequential, nature would have evolved the system as analogue.

Ron Pearson proposed that the waves which formed the fringe pattern even in modern versions of Young’s experiment, where pilot waves. He was totally correct in this proposal, however the basis of the waves are not light. They are waves of analogue mathematics which are simultaneously exploring all paths for the next dependant event. This is why when a detector is placed before the slots the fringe pattern disappears. This happens even when single particles are sent. Detector ‘on’ gives two bright bars on the screen. The selection algorithm is forced to act in the plane of the detector. Detector ‘off’ gives a fringe pattern. The next event being the screen, with no other factors, the algorithm randomly selects any path. In the absence of an observing ‘mind’ the system runs as pure mathematics.

When a ‘mind’ is present then an information exchange is triggered by the pilot wave detecting the presence of a mind. This causes a signal to be sent back to the last surface or dependant event, and this turns on a software sub-routine which displays the particle or atom.

The signal which goes back has been found and is being investigated as Quantum Photon Entanglement. In its latest form simultaneous spin changes of particle pairs up to 144 km apart are being observed. The speed of the signal is being repeatedly measured at in excess of 10,000 times the speed of light. I believe that non-entangled particles are also being investigated and show the same effect.

The measurement of speed is limited by the measuring equipment. Ron and I expect the Matrix to operate at near infinite speed.

This is the explanation for the mind matter interface. But of course, matter does not exist. It’s only what the system tricks us into believing is matter. It’s a software interface and this it explains the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Does the future exist? Yes, as a planning extrapolation of the conditions of the present. Details are filled in as the software runs to create the illusion of time. Time is defined as a measure of the rate of change. Is the future pre planned? Yes but it is capable of variation.

I will be dealing with the ‘future’ in my next article for Spirit Today.

Alan Middleton

Reply

Matthew April 17, 2013 at 6:11 pm

I always wondered what the heck was causing that effect with the double-slit experiment :)

That always struck me as completely and utterly bizarre. And now I wonder, why does it also cohere into discrete bars if a simple detector is watching it? Surely the detector itself has no consciousness…is it because said detector is an extension of our own senses and minds?

Also, Alan…are you SURE we ordinary people will be all right after death? I can’t shake this paranoia somehow.

Reply

George Barker April 17, 2013 at 7:36 pm

Matthew,
I suggest you go to a good spiritual healer to get rid of your paranoia.

Reply

Matthew April 18, 2013 at 2:13 am

The best healer is evidence. I’m mostly convinced, but for some reason I can’t hold huge amounts of information on this in my head at once. Would heaven we still had people like Rita Goold around!

What I’ve found most effective is the “start from the facts” approach: The Church of England has tacitly accepted this stuff for almost 75 years, the RCC let at least one instance slip in 1996, and now the military and spy agencies are confirming it if only through the “back door.”

Reply

George Barker April 18, 2013 at 6:09 am

Hello Matthew,
I stick by my advice. I’m not a medico but I feel sure that paranoia is just a mild mental disorder and good spiritual healers can often correct such things. When I was studying at UCL I developed a worry complex and it was cured that way. Evidence won’t help a bit but it’s useful in other ways!

Reply

Alan Middleton August 10, 2013 at 3:48 am

Matthew,

I am totally convinced that all people will survive death.

“Death is the gateway to a better life.” – Flint Tapes

Alan

Reply

Michael Roll April 6, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Peter, I am hoping that this time we will not have to wait for the old scientists to die off before people are able to find out that the way to study survival after death is via subatomic physics, forces that are normally out of range of our five physical senses. Even though leading scientists, like Professor Josephson, are not allowed to come on British television programmes and link survival with physics, natural forces in the universe, because this is against the television codes in our “free” country, we do now have the Internet. Something that Crookes and Lodge could only just dream about. Anybody with a computer can now go to Josephson’s website and listen to his BBC Radio 4 broadcast where he takes professional wreckers like James Randi apart. One day we may even see scientists like you and Josephson on our television screens balancing Professor Brian Cox’s materialistic view of the universe. However, the British Television Codes will have to be changed before this can happen. At the moment we are not allowed to talk about life after death is a serious scientific manner, only in a light-hearted manner or as a wish to entertain.

Reply

Ron Pearson March 27, 2013 at 2:29 am

Professor Wadhams 26/3/13
It is good to see a physicist of your stature giving your views on this forbidden topic. It is a very brave thing to challenge orthodoxy. I have only just returned from a short holiday, which is why this post is somewhat delayed.
(I was invited to stay with relatives to celebrate my birthday)
I was very interested to hear your views and was pleased to see you had a pre-cognitive dream that came true 14 days later. You say this means a re-thinking of the concept of time. Now this is a very head-scratching matter that I have worried about for many years. Have you any ideas on what this is likely to mean please?
Also you say Prof. Brian Josephson offers the best hope of integrating physics in such a way as to explain the ‘Paranormal’ and a spiritual existence.
Could you please give us any idea of the way his approach provides enlightenment?

Reply

Peter Wadhams April 1, 2013 at 12:26 am

Dear Ron,
I have no idea of how Prof Josephson sees quantum mechanics and mind processes interacting, but it is brave of him to seek such a link, and if anyone can find a way forward it is likely to be him. Regarding precognition, I have always accepted in principle that this exists, from the experimental evidence that ranges from long-range precognitions to the fraction-of-a-second effects detected in card guessing experiments. But when I had a very distinct precognitive dream that was a complete run-through of an unpredictable situation that happened to me 10 days later (Paranormal Review, 2011 I think) it really made me think. I could find no causative chains that would lead from my situation on day X to the experienced situation on day X+10. I can only conclude that the events on day X+10 had, in some way, already happened on day X and were part of the fabric of space-time detectable at the earlier date. I can think of no explanation for this, other than the obvious facts that our materialist concepts of causation and the arrow of time are completely wrong. Best wishes Peter Wadhams

Reply

Matthew April 3, 2013 at 12:19 pm

Prof. Wadhams:

Rather than “had already happened in some sense,” I suspect what this was, was a message basically stating “The probability of X Y and Z happening is immensely high as things continue on their current course.”

Supposedly, we have free will, and it has to be contained in the etheric since in the material world there is no possible way to explain it (hence the compatibilists and even determinists in philosophy). And I’m fairly sure I read something about the nuether having ridiculous computational capabilities, enough to simulate every possible outcome in our physical universe.

So I’d guess the dream wasn’t a statement of how things were always planned to be so much as a statement that the odds were almost unbeatably high that they would be so given past circumstance.

Reply

Esther Barmore March 24, 2013 at 12:37 am

Another informative and fun interview.

Interestingly the highly educated are often worse about having entrenched world views and tend to use their level education as a support for their beliefs/opinions more than they do actual logic or reason. It makes me think of the institution of hazing…which is perpetuated despite horrendous abuses of the innitiation concept…BY people who suffered thru it. In a like manner scientists see how any scientist giving creedence to anything ‘paranormal’ is treated and prefer to be among the taunters instead of the pioneers. It is a form of intellectual bullying. And i can testify that if you beat them at their own game (being ‘rational’) by pointing out the flaws in their logic…they go from patronizing to abusive in a heartbeat.

Reply

Michael Roll March 23, 2013 at 6:52 pm

I think Professor Brian Josephson sums up the situation very well in his New Scientist interview 9 December 2006. “It’s hard to change how people think. People have vested interests, and their projects and reputations would be threatened if certain things were shown to be true.”
We only have to read the history of scientific discovery for confirmation of this. It was not only the Christian priests who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, it was also some of his fellow scientists.

Reply

Peter Wadhams April 1, 2013 at 12:15 am

Nice to hear from you, Mike. You’re right, of course, and it was Max Planck who said that major changes in scientific world view don’t happen because scientists become convinced of a new truth but rather because the scientists who hold to the old truth die off. This slows progress down a lot.
Peter Wadhams

Reply

Michael Tymn March 23, 2013 at 5:34 pm

Refreshing openmindedness. The one thing I really struggle with is the comment “the fear of having one’s settled worldview upset.” Of course, I have heard that many times. In effect, it means that the scientist is saying he would rather be right in the short run than in the long run. To put it another way, the fear of having one’s worldview upset now is greater than the fear of extinction. While there are some who say they welcome extinction (whether bravado or not, I do not know), I believe that the great majority would prefer survival to extinction. If the fear of appearing unscientific now is greater than the fear of extinction, it does appear to boil down to ego or political correctness.

Reply

George Barker March 23, 2013 at 8:41 am

I should have mentioned that the spirit/souls of people, after incarnating in whatever form e.g. reptilian/ amphibian/ Roswell type, etc., and of whatever unknown elements on other planets, seem to be of the same nature as earth’s spirit/soul after “death”. Apparently some of them hobnob with Earth souls who have achieved an appropriate level of development. I have been told that reptilian ones seem to be very powerful healers.

Reply

Matthew March 25, 2013 at 10:51 am

Okay..

How do we even know those things are real? Human spirits are one thing but how do you know the reptiles or Roswell greys are? And aren’t they usually stated to be evil by most people (like poor, poor Dave Icke…) who believe they exist?

I don’t believe we’re alone in the universe, but I also would be very suspicious of any spirit claiming to be reptoid or similar. For all we know they might be evil and screwing with us.

Reply

George Barker March 25, 2013 at 8:38 pm

Replying to Matthew’s “How do we even know those things are real? Human spirits are one thing but how do you know the reptiles or Roswell greys are? And aren’t they usually stated to be evil by most people (like poor, poor Dave Icke…) who believe they exist?
I don’t believe we’re alone in the universe, but I also would be very suspicious of any spirit claiming to be reptoid or similar. For all we know they might be evil and screwing with us.”:-

Matthew, you are right to be suspicious of all second-hand information. I am too, but the possible nature of things I put forward is based on considering many sources of such second-hand “facts” collected by Tymn, Fontana, Crookall, Barry Eaton, Findlay, Borgia, Rix, and others, as well as information from a highly spiritually developed friend. I think that it is almost certainly true that intelligent life, not always shaped like us on other planets is of different chemistry. Whether this accounts for black matter and energy is wild conjecture put forward, somewhat out of context I admit, and intended to stimulate criticism, so thank you for responding!

Reply

Matthew March 26, 2013 at 1:57 am

What they’re made of concerns me much less than whether they’re truly benevolent or not.

I am well aware of how illusionary the physical universe is; always have been ever since I was a little boy and read how much of the atom is empty space. So it’s less “how is this physically possible?” that worries me than “what are their motives, if they exist?”

Reply

George Barker March 26, 2013 at 5:35 am

I have been mainly interested in building a picture of everything by looking at the different tales coming through mediums.

It would be pleasant to think that because most ETs, if they exist, come from older and more highly developed places (according to Silver Birch and others Earth is one of the least developed planets), they are all benevolent. I share your concern that this is not necessarily so and there must surely be good and evil forces from everywhere in the hereafter.

Well-intentioned people attract good and those with self-interest at heart attract evil powers. So I am inclined to favour David Icke’s view of how the invasion of Irak was generated.

I suspect you fear that somewhere there are bad elements of other planets with bad intentions against Earth and who can say you nay!.

Reply

George Barker March 23, 2013 at 6:29 am

This was a very interesting interview. I have a comment on “Q: How far do you think that scientific research into so-called “paranormal” events has progressed? Enough to formulate a hypothesis, possibly leading to a theory?

Peter: Possibly the best hope of a theory lies in the work of Brian Josephson (Nobel laureate in physics) who seeks to connect spirituality and psi phenomena with quantum effects”

If I were a physicist I would probably say the same, since the mind set of physicists is that all must be explicable eventually in physicists’ language.

However messages that appear to be from very advanced afterlife people say that it is impossible to describe fully their world in earthly vocabulary. I refer to sources such as Oliver Lodge, Silver Birch and Brigitte Rix’s source on page 224 of her book, “Truths, Lies and Distortions”. This surely implies that the physics, biology, etc., of the afterlife is beyond the grasp of us humans, which is a notion unpalatable to physicists but which causes me, being a simple engineer, no distress. My advice to scientists, in the unlikely event of it being requested, would be to take an interest in afterlife lore but concentrate on finding out how to make physical things work and be resigned to not knowing very deeply why they work.
For example Craig Ventnor is said to have created the first artificial life and I would say full marks to him for creating conditions for life to enter a body but he had not created life itself. He may think he did of course. Not everyone can have the perception of a life force permeating the cosmos ready to animate a suitable biological entity.

Returning to the material world, what is fascinating to me is the news that life on other planets IN THIS COSMOS is not based on the carbon/oxygen nor the carbon/sulphur submarine systems we have in earth, but on different systems which must include different elements to ours. I first came across this in Briggitte Rix’s book but I have found confirmation elsewhere. There must be solar systems that are invisible to us because the light from their suns is produced by different elements from ours? Perhaps some of them give off light which we receive as radio waves? It is almost certain that, having mass, they occupy the 96% of celestial material that astronomers describe as dark matter. The mind boggles. Mine does anyway! What about yours?

Reply

Michael Roll March 23, 2013 at 3:22 am

This is indeed a breath of fresh air from a brave scientist who is not frightened to tell the truth. We first broadcast together, with Ron Pearson, on the Jeff Rense Radio Programme on 3rd November 2001 and again on 18th March 2003, this time with a member of the SPR John Samson. This radio programme teamed up with many stations across the USA and the rest of the world on the Internet. In spite of the religious and scientific block, millions are now reading survival after death as a branch of physics – natural and normal forces in the universe. It will be impossible to block uncomfortable discoveries in physics for much longer.

Reply

Bob ( UK ) March 23, 2013 at 3:13 am

Welcome aboard Professor Wadhams, it’s nice to get the views of such an eminent scientist as yourself, together with others such as Ron Pearson who has also made a significant contribution to this relatively new website, which covers a particularly old topic.
I personally, have no idea about any aspects of science, being just an ordinary English bloke who has an eager appetite in finding the truth about the “afterlife”.
I know, from my own personal experience that we do survive after so called death, — and I am interested in wanting to know why so many modern day “scientists” seem to shy away from even the possibility of an afterlife. Is this because of professional doggedness in the face of overwhelming evidence – ( from the likes of Sir William Crookes etc ) or is it more a case of “political correctness” in the scientific community, not to rock the boat.???
Thank you for your fine contribution Professor.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Current day month ye@r *

Previous post:

Next post: