Skip to content

An Interview with Christian Sorenson on Consciousness, Ideal Reality, Mathematics, and Ontological Reality (Part Six)


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/06/08


Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Keywords: Christian Sorenson, ideal reality, mathematics, natural, ontology, pure philosophy, Quantum Mechanics.

An Interview with Christian Sorenson on Consciousness, Ideal Reality, Mathematics, and Ontological Reality (Part Six)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Math/maths/mathematics, what is it?

Christian Sorenson: I feel, they are like “musical melodies,” that when “listened to” and “contemplated” through soul, produce a “sensation of pleasure,” similar to “sexual enjoyment.”

Jacobsen: As a branch of science, how do mathematical sciences seem to exist in some nether world between natural philosophy/science and pure philosophy?

Sorenson: I think the opposite, since “math” is the one that should be found above science and above natural and pure philosophy, due to the fact that if “ultimate reality is ideal,” then this last should be written by “means of numbers,” and therefore they are “not perceptible by senses” nor can they be studied through “empirical object models.”

Jacobsen: Is math created, discovered, both, or more?

Sorenson: I don’t have the certainty that “math” is created, I only have the conviction that “it exists,” and likewise, I believe it’s not “discovered,” since it only “knows how to show itself.”

Jacobsen: Why does math describe the natural world so well?

Sorenson: Because the “natural world,” is an “image” or “shadow” of the “ideal world” that is “real,” and “written” in “mathematical language.”

Jacobsen: What unites the mathematical descriptions of the world and the conclusions of the world as a natural dynamic object?

Sorenson: The “subject.”

Jacobsen: Why does the quantum mechanical world mean an ontological uncertainty about the world? In that, the universe does not have complete information about itself.

Sorenson: Since “quantum mechanical world,” tries to study “ontological reality” of the universe through what I will denominate as “model of being,” due to the fact that the “nature” of what quantum theory considers as “elementary particles,” constitutes in my opinion nothing more than “supposed entities,” because until now has never reached to observed them. Therefore, I believe that these last, only fulfills an “instrumental empirical function,” that’s just able to provide “indirect ontological certainties,” and in consequence it is logical to conclude, that “universe,” does not have complete information about itself, since “yet has not been able first to complete itself.”

Jacobsen: Why does a natural philosophy or science mean an epistemological uncertainty? In that, the tools of science only give partial and incomplete knowledge in various fidelities about the universe.

Sorenson: In my opinion it is not about “natural philosophy” or “science,” but rather of “natural philosophy” and “science,” since both “can share the bias” regarding the “object of study,” nevertheless not so, in relation to their “response capacity,” because meanwhile one of them “responds to how” and only fulfills with “intermediate responses,” the other instead does it “regarding to what,” in function to “ultimate responses,” and therefore by reaching higher degrees of “certainty,” which can never go beyond the “principle of non-contradiction.”

Humanly speaking, the latter “is our limit,” since until now we have not been able to exceed it.

Jacobsen: Why does sensory uncertainty mean yet another layer of uncertainty for us?

Sorenson: Because “esse, est percipi.”

Jacobsen: Why does the knowing that we know and being a here-and-how consciousness amount to the main certainty available to us, as individual consciousnesses?

Sorenson: Regarding “individual consciousness,” I feel that rather than having an “amount of certainty,” only has an “ephemeral” one, since it constitutes a “present-moment” that when it’s “apprehended,” at the same time “disappears.” Nevertheless, what I consider as “collective consciousness,” is quite different, because unlike the “individual,” allows us to capture “present’s-presence” through what I would name as “inter-relational noetic consensus.”

Jacobsen: If we have the certainty of the existence of ourselves as knowing that we know and being here-and-now consciousnesses or richly aware though highly flawed interconnected information processors, and if we have the sensory uncertainty provided via the various sense modalities of the body feeding into this consciousness, and if we have the second epistemological uncertainties of the sciences and various means by which some reasonable estimates of the natural world are derived from natural philosophical/scientific tools, and if we have the third ontological uncertainty of the universe being built quantum mechanically and, therefore, having incomplete knowledge about itself, then the one certainty comes down to individual self-awareness with everything extended out from this and back into us implying a layered cake of individuated and reasonably understood uncertainties with distinct characteristics and implications for the individual self-awarenesses. In this natural world and one describable by mathematics, we come to a naturalistic mind and a mathematical description in principle or in theory possible about such awarenesses, which makes the simulation and replication in different mediums possible for or about these consciousnesses. In that, the mathematical models of human consciousnesses individually at first and then as a range of elements in the set of all possible natural human consciousnesses become possible to download from or simulate into some massive future database or computer. Some things follow from the overarching constructs here. One, the universe is a natural place. Two, it can be described by mathematics. Three, human beings are naturalistic and describable by math. Four, human consciousness is naturalistic and describable by mathematical sciences, eventually. Five, this means an eventual replication in artificial intellects, including feeling, sensing, emoting, in ranges and fidelities far beyond current human forms. Six, as with anything understood, there is a continual wonder about it, but a mundane-making of it. In that, human consciousness will be probably devalued as a result of comprehension and replication. It becomes another thing that the scientists can do now. Seven, the room for magical, supernatural, extramaterial, supernormal, extramundane, spooky, paranormal, or miraculous hypotheses about the natural world get, more or less, squeezed out of possible. As Hawking had noted about the functionality-victory of science compared to religion, “It works.” Or as Dawkins noted, “It works… bitches.” Yet, as I see in Canada, and as I see in the United States of America, and throughout the world, truly, a continual onslaught of non-sense – as in making no sense at all, practically or reasonably or scientifically – pummeling the eyes and the minds of the nations. Is there as asymptote on the levels of actual knowledge about the world citizens can handle, simply as a fact about the species?

Sorenson: I agree about that “science” is the answer, nevertheless I consider that it is possible “to go further” towards a science but “with capital letters,” that is to say, that allows us to find responses that until now neither “conventional science” nor “philosophy” have been able to reach. I believe that all the “uncertainties and disorientations” that exists, have indeed led out to a “great world convulsion,” since pragmatically speaking, the “most principal common sense,” that’s our “reason common sense” has “shone by its absence.” From my point of view, deep down, what exists is a generalized “syndrome of learned despair,” as a consequence of not being capable enough to find solutions to “fundamental problems” that affect us as a specie. In this sense, I estimate that a possible path, would be to try to “broaden the field of consciousness,” in order to “discover and explore other dimensions,” that may allow to “expand our micro-cosmos,” and in this way to achieve an “evolutionary leap” that enables “higher cognitive resources” to gain access to “realities” with other “registers of complexity.”

Jacobsen: How do the uncertainties and certainty in the universe mix to you? What makes them coherent?

Sorenson: Actually for me they mix when “I dream,” since “for dreaming,” first of all it is necessary “to awake.”

Jacobsen: Are the laws of nature really “laws”?

Sorenson: From my point of view, they are “neologisms of linearity” with “abstract existence.”

Jacobsen: Why do these “musical melodies” bring about a joy or enjoyment akin to sexual pleasure?

Sorenson: Since I define the “subject” as “S -1,” and in my opinion if “math” is “metaphorically encrypted” on the space of “incognito” as “unknown,” and in turn “sexual pleasure” is always with respect to a “lack,” then it could be said that what I can experience, is close “to enjoyment,” which in “its nature is sexual” though not necessarily “carnal.”

Jacobsen: For numbers, as the representation of the ideal reality in a notation comprehensible to human beings, what does this say about numbers in and of themselves?

Sorenson: I believe that “number” as an “ideal reality” exists autonomously, nevertheless, as “an entity it is barred” in itself, since it is not possible to access towards its inside, and therefore it is “not capable of expressing anything.” In consequence, is only by “forming chains” and establishing “operational relationships” with others as “entities of same nature” that’s able to express “comprehensible meanings.”

Jacobsen: What does this say about mathematics apart from human forms of notation of the ideal world in the mathematics, where mathematics becomes the closest translational tool for comprehension of the ideal world from which human beings derive?

Sorenson: Implicitly speaking, they say that although they cannot be written down as “forms of notation,” there’s an exception if this regards a particular “symbol,” since what ultimately try to represent is nothing less than “infinite,” due to the fact that at all times they “spin around” and somehow keep “in relation” to it.

Jacobsen: What is the ideal world?

Sorenson: In my opinion it is similar to a “spiritual world,” that is in another “place of reality” perhaps parallel to ours, which is “eternal and immutable,” and from which we descended by “emanations” into “this existence.”

Jacobsen: Is the ideal world infinite, absolute, both, or more?

Sorenson: I believe it’s a “universal form,” that simultaneously is “alpha and omega,” and which “evolves expanding and compressing spirally.”

Jacobsen: Why did mathematics end up as the translational tool, i.e., numerical symbolization and operators relating the numbers?

Sorenson: Because our “formal rational processes” works with a “binary logic” that I will denominate as “logic of out-out,” and which lastly will be the base that enables numbers, to relate through operators, between each other.

Jacobsen: Even in the case of a “conviction,” isn’t this simply a more sophisticated manned of stating a sensibility akin to a faith in the extant nature of math?

Sorenson: Actually not, since “faith convictions” necessarily “are apodictics” in their certainties, and therefore follow the “path of truth,” while mine doesn’t, because actually continues “that of doxa.” Therefore if at the same time, a “mathematical idea” may be thought, then someone needs to exist for being so. And in turn, if this “occurs inside me,” then I can “affirm with conviction” from experience, that indeed “it exists at least within myself,” and that “this is as much as I do.”

Jacobsen: What are the ways in which math “knows how to show itself,” as this phrase connotes a conscious intent “to be known”?

Sorenson: “Math” in my opinion does not have to manifest itself “through a veil.” Analogically speaking, it is the only entity that actually can absolutely say “that is the one who is,” since “does not participates of its ideal form.” For this reason, in turn they don’t “show themselves,” but on the contrary, we are the ones who instead “need to follow some path” to access them, which is neither derived from “intellectual reflections” nor of “pragmatism,” yet only through “reminiscence” they will be achieved. In other words, is by “reminding” that these “will emerged spontaneously,” and at a certain moment in “the field of our consciousness.” And is with the mediation of “contemplation,” which

enables them for “being visualized” in a “fleeting space” with our “spiritual senses,” that we “are authorized” to access their “knowledge deeply.”

Jacobsen: In “ultimate reality is ideal,” what is meant by “ideal”?

Sorenson: I think that “ideal” in itself means something similar to a “immaterial model” in an “aesthetic and ontological” sense of understanding it, with respect to which all “other entities of identical substantial attributes are comparables.” Therefore, “with whom” also we can “formally identify ourselves” since it will be in relation to “properties” that are possessed by an “essence.”

Jacobsen: Is there truly a bottom, philosophical bedrock? Or is it an onion to peel, and peel, and peel, ad infinitum?

Sorenson: At the “level of consciousness and logic” in which sciences and philosophy are currently found, I believe that indeed there is a bottom beyond which it is not possible to go. Nevertheless, at same time I am convinced about the premise, that there are “other possible levels of consciousness,” and also other “logical formalities” that probably would only have “infinity as a limit.”

Jacobsen: Of numbers, these are part of math. Math is part of a toolkit to represent the ideal reality. What are numbers before representation?

Sorenson: I believe they were part of an “undifferentiated ideal whole” which was different from “zero,” and that could be “symbolized” mathematically assuming the “sign of infinity.”

Jacobsen: How much is left out in the “shadow” or the “image” of ideal reality? Obviously, we have enough clarity to survive and get along.

Sorenson: I feel that what is left, is “as much as a mirage,” though in the desert “nothing is more real” than that.

Jacobsen: What is the subject in this intermediary role between mathematical descriptions of the world and the conclusions of the world as a natural dynamic object?

Sorenson: In my opinion, is a “divided subject,” who in its “actual evolutionary degree,” is not able to access not even to itself, nor to the natural and ideal worlds, since it’s incapable to remove “the barrier” interposed “between symbol and its meaning,” and therefore has no choice, but to “access indirectly into it,” only through the use of “metaphor and metonymy.”

Jacobsen: Between these four points of contact between the ideal reality, the mathematical descriptors, the subject, and the natural dynamic object, how does one “bleed into” another? That is to say, three of these, by definition, should have fuzzy edges of one “feeding off” and into another.

Sorenson: A “Mathematical descriptor,” is similar to a “double pendulum” that joins the other three elements through “unpredictable movements,” that in my opinion follow a “coherent chaos.” On one end, it unites “ideal reality” which “sustains others,” and acts as the “founding matrix” of others. And on the other extreme, it does so with the “natural world,” that is “the least subsistent” of all, ontologically speaking. The “subject” for its part, is found “in the pendulum joint,” and metaphysically speaking is alike to “a middle child” or to “the ham of a sandwich,” due to fact that it’s “not a completely subsistent and pure form,” as occurs with the “ideal one,” but in turn it is “not either” a “purely sensitive substance” because doesn’t belongs entirely to the “natural” world.

Jacobsen: What is intelligence in relation to the ideal reality, the mathematical descriptors, the subject, and the natural dynamic object? Most organisms never formalize a mathematical language for description of the ideal world. (Some) Human beings remain unique in operation within a world of natural dynamic object while having some level of knowledge of mathematics to comprehend the formal descriptors of the ideal reality.

Sorenson: “Intelligence,” is similar to “a non-abstract-able” and “semi-immaterial drive motor,” that in relation to “ideal reality” is “potentially capable” of “abstracting an essence,” and therefore of “extracting it symbolically” through a “formal identification” process, which “leads it to assimilated” as if it was a part of itself.

Jacobsen: What is ontological reality? Is this another way to speak of ideal reality?

Sorenson: It is not equivalent to speak of one or the other, since “ideal reality” is always an “ontological reality” but the latter is not always an “ideal reality.” The “ontological reality,” is “the reality of being as such,” therefore it comprises “all existing beings,” while “ideal reality,” only encompasses a type of beings that are “eternals,” “pure forms,” and “subsistingly existing.”

Jacobsen: Who was the first to speak of an ideal reality?

Sorenson: In my opinion who first spoked of “ideal reality” more consistently and systematically was Platon.

Jacobsen: Since we can predict, hypothesize, and visualize, we can create low-fidelity versions of the ideal reality with the proper mathematical constructs in mind, even more true for internal abstractions of the “images” of ideal reality brought forth into us. Our capacity is intriguing and points to orientations towards abstracted notions of truth and objectivity as something approximated via evolution (sorry, Plantinga), simply as a matter of the flowing course of evolution over time. I can make this more concrete. The adjacent sexual pleasure derived from some music appears to come from the representation of mathematical certainties and in the real “musical melodies” of music, as per the Mozart example from before, or some recent tones in some of Gibbons, Haydn, and Hindemith, who I have been listening to today. We seem to have evolved a system of reward or “pleasure” from encountering the mathematical “musical melodies” reflective of some ideal reality, while represented in a variety of modalities in the image world derived from the ideal world. There is no direct question here. Only some thoughts for reflection and extension by you.

Sorenson: The “sexual pleasure” of which I refer, is not necessarily equivalent to something of “carnal nature.” Indeed, and at the same time “sexual pleasure” as such, has evolved overtime in “its function,” but not with “its goal,” therefore somehow has remained unchanged in this development context, since “pleasure” has being until nowadays a “reward response” to “sexual behavior,” and this in turn occurs as a way of “ensuring procreation and survival” of our specie. From my point of view “sexual pleasure,” constitutes “structurally” speaking “the subject,” due to the fact that its mind, “cannot-but-function” exclusively “for pleasure.” Meanwhile the latter in turn, “cannot-but-be solely” of “a sexual nature.” I sustain that “pleasure is structuring and structural,” because “it works thanks to a piece that does not have,” that is to say “to a lack.” And its “nature is sexual,” for the reason that throughout existence, searches “an object” with which intends to “symbolically copulate,” in order “to complete” by that way the structurally missing piece, which ultimately will “be felt as pleasant.” The last occurs, since at the moment that “crush arrives with the object,” an “illusion similar to infatuation” emerges and “fades away” afterwards, as a consequence that “it actually did happened,” though “it does not exists.” In consequence, what is reached “is a failed alliance,” that secondly derives into a “subjective feeling of emptiness,” which translates into a sensation of “butterflies flying in the stomach,” and that lastly allows me to refer to “pleasure.”

Jacobsen: Will this ontological reality ever be able to complete itself?

Sorenson: I think that if “ontological reality” were to be completed in a moment, “movement” would then be stopped, and “existence” of everything “will be ended” as consequence.

Jacobsen: Can we get past the “principle of non-contradictions”?

Sorenson: I believe “we can” but “we haven’t done it,” since “this principle” is linked to “formal logic,” that until now has ruled “science” and “philosophy.” In my opinion, there have been “failed attempts,” such as occurred with “Hegelian dialectic.” Indeed from my point of view, they have done nothing “but just to rest the same,” due to the fact that they aren’t capable to reach to get out of “a tripolar frame of reasoning,” currently based on “two premises engaged with a conclusive deduction” if is the case of traditional logic, and of a “thesis and antithesis linked to synthesis” if is dialectic thinking.

Jacobsen: If to be is to be perceived, or to be is to perceive, what does this mean for the act of perception of the “subject” existent between the ideal world and the natural dynamic object?

Sorenson: In my opinion, means that “reality is for the subject,” in the sense of being “what it is perceived,” and therefore “is partial” because of “its relativity and changing reflection” regarding natural world, which in turn consist of “images” regarding “real figures,” that “walk in front of fires light” as if they were representing “ideal models” of everything,

Jacobsen: In a transactional sense of “esse, est percipi,” does the being of one inform the being of another via the mutual act of perception?

Sorenson: I think that the “perceived being” informs the “perceptual subject,” nevertheless the latter “partially perceives” the first, and therefore “completes the rest,” based on its “own subjectivity,” regarding its “self and circumstances,” in order to ultimately “reach to form” what I will denominate as “hybrid gestaltic perception.”

Jacobsen: If individual consciousness is an ephemeral sense of the here-and-now, and to grasp itself, as in to turn the “esse, est percipi” upon the self, then it becomes an attempt to “see one’s own back,” which doesn’t work. It is an interesting framing because it appears to imply others are required, more than one operator is required, for a more verified self-existence to make sense and be confirmed in a more certain sense, as attempts on one’s own lead to evaporation of the self based on its “ephemeral” nature. Could there be such a case of a single brain split in consciousnesses able to perceive themselves (itself) in one body?

Sorenson: I believe it “should be possible,” as long as it is based on a “profoundly gifted brain.” The key for achieving it, is by expanding ourselves into other “higher dimensions of consciousness.” The restriction will outcome for “common brains,” since they can only reach “three dimensions,” that I will represent as “body, mind and soul.” The challenge is to first incorporate “the spirit,” in order to access a “fourth dimension,” and afterwards through a “superior self,” that would be a “portion of the total self,” to enter into a level of consciousness of “two or three dimensions higher” than what is known as “common consciousness dimension.”

Jacobsen: Are we really a unified consciousness or more of a committee coming to more or less singular aims at any given moment with only the apparency of the unity of mind?

Sorenson: At the level of “consciousness” in which we find ourselves, we have managed to recognize that in addition to “forming a group entity,” we are capable of being aware of our” individual entity,” but not to the point of having “crystallized individualization,” and therefore not to a level of “consciousness unity.”

Jacobsen: Can you expand on a “science” that ‘goes father’ “with capital letters”?

Sorenson: This science would be “less technocratic,” able to “unite all its branches integrally into only one,” capable of “overcoming the scientific method,” and empirically that “dispenses with inductive thought.”

Jacobsen: What is contemporary science “with lower case letters”? What is current philosophy “with lower case letters”?

Sorenson: In my opinion currently it is an increasingly “micro-cephalic,” “dissociated” and “superficial” science.

In regards to today’s philosophy, I feel it “is a den of ignorant doctorates” and “fancy professors” who “stubbornly” repeat a “moth-smelling speech.”

Jacobsen: What is absent in the shining of “reason commonsense”?

Sorenson: The “self-referential” supremacy of “basic dichotomous and involutive impulses.”

Jacobsen: What are some hints of this higher reality comprised of greater complexity in comprehension (all-at-once understanding)?

Sorenson: The fact that there may be “an intersection or simultaneous trans-position” between “different and co-existent realities,” where meanwhile “temporality runs in another direction,” “principle of non-contradiction is abolished,” and that of “sufficient reason” is replaced by one of “necessary reason.”

Jacobsen: Does this make umbers autonomous quanta of the ideal reality?

Sorenson: “Numbers” as “original forms” of the “ideal world” are “autonomous,” nevertheless as “descriptors of natural reality” are “not autonomous,” since although they “aren’t material” they are though “representations” of “ideal numbers,” to which we “don’t have any access,” but “that we could do,” if “complex realities” were able to be reached

Jacobsen: What would permit a tapping into the internal nature of a number itself?

Sorenson: More than “touching the internal nature of number” in itself, would be “to contemplate it” within “its ideal state,” since with that condition it could be found in “its very essence,” and therefore regarding “internal nature,” there “would be nothing within something.” The quickest and most direct “probable path” to achieve this, should be “through death.”

Jacobsen: Why is the ideal world spiritual? What is the meaning of spiritual in this sense?

Sorenson: “Spiritual” within all the “energy vibrations,” is a state “equivalent” to one that “was emanated” during a supposed “breath of creation,” and therefore by “achieving that equivalence,” we can “make the way back” to return towards the “emanating vessels.”

Jacobsen: To make a number in and of itself “brought down” to human comprehension, the use of mathematical and numeric symbolization limit the infinite nature of an ideal world number.

Sorenson: I think so, since “the numbers” as we know them, are in certain way “an embodiment” of them in an “ideal state,” and therefore they are “impoverished representations” of what they are “in reality.” However, on the other hand that “limited form,” is the “only way” we have so far “to access them.”

Jacobsen: What makes a model of ideal reality both ontologically and aesthetic (beautiful or satisfying in a non-carnal sense)?

Sorenson: “Harmony” and “perfection.”

Jacobsen: If intelligence is somewhat immaterial, does this provide a proper framework to seeing how this can reproduced algorithmically in silica? In that, it is about the pattern of information channeling the processing rather the material substrate or physical manifestation. It is about the form rather than substance upon which the form is represented in many, but not all, cases.

Sorenson: “Information processing” has to do “with both,” that is with “form and matter.” In the case of “human intelligence,” the “substance” would “have to do” with “the form,” since the former would refer to “its essential attributes.” Nevertheless, as it seems to me that the “question implicitly” aimed to know what happens to “artificial intelligence,” then it is necessary to specified that regarding this case, it would “be the other way around,” because “the matter as material substrate” is going to act as “substance,” in order to determine the “formal characteristics” which would channelled to “processing the information.”

Jacobsen: If an ideal reality represented by an infinity sign is in some sense a bottom, and if the numbers of this ideal reality rather than in the mathematical descriptors of this reality co-exist as an extended part of it, and if a property of aseity is implied by an autonomous existence, does this mean that time is a derivative rather than a fundamental of ideal reality? In that, time is in the shadow or image reality rather than the ideal reality and, therefore, the property of time comes out as a shadow of a reality of no time in which atemporality is an extended meaning of aseity or autonomous existence.

Sorenson: In my opinion, in the “ideal world” of “subsisting entities,” the “only form of temporality” that exists “is present,” which “is not strictly temporary,” and therefore “does exists” nevertheless “time does not,” since in this context “present is not being a delimited instance.” For this reason paradoxically, in “our reality “and perhaps in others of “greater complexity” where “temporality exists,” what we name strictly speaking “as present, does not really exists.”

Jacobsen: What is logic a delimitation or self-limitation of, in reality?

Sorenson: Both “are logical,” but have “different connotations,” since “self-limitation” can be due to “metaphysical” factors, that’s to say regarding “beings order” or in reason to “circumstantial” elements, or perhaps “the two of them,” while “delimitation” usually is “a subjective exercise,” in relation to “certain reality” which is “cut into parts,” and in that sense “its outlined figuratively or not.”

Jacobsen: If everything stopped bubbling means a stoppage of all motion, and if the classical world of the large-scale physics shows a dynamic but apparently solid universe, does this mean the universe is in some sense moving toward a state of ultimate staticization? A state of penultimate stoppage; if so, what differentiates the image reality or shadow reality if everything came to a stop and the ideal reality at that point? It would seem the universe moves, in some manner, to closer and closer approximations to some subset state of the ideal reality.

Sorenson: I consider that the “world of classical physics,” does not exhaustively represents “reality of the universe,” since among other things, has operated with “linear causality criteria,” and in fact also “current physics” continues to do so even though uses “other forms of causality.” I believe indeed that “movement exists” regarding “ours dimensional reality,” and in that context, what is described in this question, might effectively occur. Nevertheless, I am not sure that “movement does exists” in “other realities,” and therefore if hypothetically “doesn’t exists,” it would be plausible to affirm that perhaps “the universe” only “expands and compresses” within a “crooked circularity process” and in consequence it could be deducible to believe that is “indestructible.”

Jacobsen: What are other important qualitative differences one sees at the level of the profoundly gifted?

Sorenson: Besides the fact that they might reach “higher dimensions of conscience” and that they are “ultra-sensibles,” is the circumstance that “they never” will be individuals with “equilibrated intelligences,” since this last apart from being “a logical counter-sense,” is “a lack of respect” towards the “intelligence” of “geniuses,” because it is “a sneaky way” of approaching to “a magical realism” in order to “try to normalize” their personalities and “turn them off.”

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Philosopher.

[2] Individual Publication Date: June 8, 2020:; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020:

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: