The Interview with an Intelligence that some humans may call ‘God’

- Thank you very much for allowing this conversation.

- You are welcome. I fear I will have to speak in analogies since the actual facts would be incomprehensible to you.

- That is fine. I mean, thank you for taking that trouble. My first question is: What is the purpose of life, according to you?

- No beating around the bush, eh? The hardest question first. We need to be more precise here. Are you referring to your life or what you consider as mine?

- I mean: life on earth. Is that an accident or was it designed and if it was designed: to what end?

- It started with an idea. A concept. A crystallisation point. Some basic rules and parameters. From there things happened. If you let go of a ball at the top of a mountain, you know it wil bounce down. Where it bounces, its route and where it will come to a standstill, you do not plan. It just happens as it does.

- Why was there that first idea and why was it executed? Was it curiosity? Boredom?

- For us having the idea and executing it are not two things. Having the idea is starting it.

- Us? Who is ‘us’?

- In fact there is no ‘us’ of course, but from your perspective there is ‘they’, I suppose, and I am part of that ‘they’. I guess that’s why I used the term ‘us’.

- How many of you are there?

- Numbers and counting is particular to human intelligence. So I am afraid I cannot answer that question. To answer your initial question — I expect it was more boredom than curiosity. Curiosity implies there is something to discover. But there isn’t, you see. So, boredom is close enough. Having something to observe, rather than nothing.

- So are we like a zoo for you to watch?

- No, I wouldn’t call it a zoo. It’s more like a game.

- Like a simulation game: The Settlers, The Sims?

- Kind of, yeah. But from what I have seen there is quite some interference in that type of games, by the players. We are not players. I see myself as an observer.

- But you do watch us?

- ‘Watch’ implies eyes, or more broadly: senses or sensors. I observe without sensing.

- I am afraid I do not understand that.

- No, I can ‘see’ that, haha. It is hard to explain in the context of your three dimensions plus time. Have you heard of “entanglement”?

- Yes. That is about two particles being connected. If one changes, its spin for instance, the other responds immediately, irrespective of the distance between the two.

- Very good! My observing is something like that. Imagine that for each particle in the universe — your universe — I have a counterpart. If a particle in the universe changes, the corresponding one in me changes as well. So I am aware of the change.

- So, are we a projection of you? Like a hologram?

- Not more than the reverse. Except that all the particles of your universe have a counterpart in me. But not all of my particles have a counterpart in your universe.

- OK. And the particles of you that are not represented in our universe, are they represented in other universes?

- Perhaps.

- And in your system, are the particles that are connected to different universes interacting with each other?

- Perhaps. Sometimes.

- So, we are influenced by other universes? I assume it is a two-way system? I mean: you are not only passively following what changes in our universe, are you? You are also active — you change a particle ‘in you’ — or it is changed by a particle connected to another universe — and the corresponding particle in my universe — or in my body for that matter — follows suit?

- That is a delicate question. You are asking whether I actively interfere in the course of things in your universe. As a matter of principle: I don’t.

- Well, maybe I wasn’t even thinking of interfering. I was thinking more of communicating.

- Ah. Communication! The key topic of human beings. You know: communication as you know it is a complicated and error-prone process. Take ‘talking’ as an example. It starts with an idea in one brain. That is step one. Then that idea needs to be converted into words. Step two. The words never fully cover the idea, they are an approximation, so inaccurate. The words need to be spoken. Step three. Another source of inaccuracy. That signal needs to reach the ear attached to another brain. Step four. There you have your sensing. That can go wrong easily. Background interference, things like that. Whatever reaches the brain from the ear needs to be converted back to an idea. Step five. Hopefully this idea is the same as that in brain one. More often than not it is not. No communication for me, thank you very much. Observation by entanglement, that’s it for me.

- OK — so you do not communicate to us. You said that in principle you do not interfere. That implies: sometimes you do.

- Well, that’s delicate as I said. We are not supposed to do that.

- Interfering is like cheating?

- Kind of. Not really. And it is so small. Just one particle or two.

- What kind of particle would that be most of the time?

- There is no ‘most of the time’. It hardly happens. But if it occurs, it would be with what you call a photon.

- Light?

- Time rather. A photon is essentially a particle of time. In your system a photon has a maximum speed and hence inside — or on — the photon, time stands still or better: is not. You guys see the speed of light, of a photon, as maximal motion. It would be so much easier if you saw it as point zero. No time. No past. No future. And yet: eternity. That’s where I am. But I digress. What were we discussing?

- You were interfering — ‘rarely’ — by means of manipulating photons.

- Have I said that? Hmmm. You know, the most critical thing in your universe is: coincidence. I am not sure whether your scientists acknowledge that well enough. Anything happens anywhere anytime. To no effect. The secret of success (and of disaster as well) is perfect timing. Coincidence and interference of two random, otherwise pointless events. A boy rushes on his bike too catch a train. He gets a flat tyre by a 4 mm nail sitting point up on a bike track of billions of square millimeters; he misses the train and takes the next. There he comes to sit across a beautiful girl who will be his partner for life. Co-incidence.

- A 4 mm nail is a bit bigger than a photon…

- This was an analogy my dear, an analogy. You do not want to imply that I would place a nail on a bike track and steer the boy so that he rides over it? Ridiculous! The thought!

- Alright. Sorry. You did not put the nail there. How does the photon come in?

- I am sorry. I cannot explain. The analogy is all I have to offer to help you getting a grasp.

- Could please give it one more try?

- Maybe I can refer to your deterministic physics models and your chaos theory.

- Well… I fear that would be beyond me as well.

- You know, some of your scientists have come close, quite close. Newton came up with a deterministic model for everything that happens in your nature. Basically objects or particles are bouncing into each other and then bouncing back according to strict rules. If you know all objects and you know the first bounce you can predict all future bounces, until eternity. These future bounces have been defined, determined by the laws of physics. Very clever finding! Sometimes one little bounce can have an amplifying effect. Like a pebble dropping from the top of a mountain and causing an avalanche.

- Or the wing of a butterfly causing a tornado?

- Exactly! Very good! That is indeed a myth from chaos theory. The butterfly of Edward Lorenz. A clever guy too! Some systems are wired such that they are very sensitive to small changes. The weather for instance; Lorenz was a meteorologist. Combine the two. One bounce and you can predict all future events in a very sensitive system. One may wish to interfere with how one particular photon bounces back and if one picks the right one, things will go one’s way.

- Things?

- Nails on bike tracks. A love affair. An ape starting to speak. A hurricane. A guy with Catweazle hair discovering the relation between energy, mass and the speed of light (there you have it again). An amateur painter with a small black moustache putting the world into despair. A meteor extinguishing all dinosaurs. Whatever.

- Well, I do not want to offend you, but you may have only manipulated a photon once or twice — your interference apparently had massive effects though. Foundational to our future.

- I did not say I actually did all that. We are still talking analogies. But I could have. Yes, I could have.

- In those very sporadic occasions you do steer a photon, what is your driver? Why would you do that?

- Well, for one thing: one does not want the game to end too soon, does one?

- Do you mean the game in its entirety, or could it also apply to your hero of the game?

- We have no favourites! We don’t.

- But sometimes you judge it’s required that a certain person materialises at a certain place at a certain time?

- Indeed. A person, or a beast, or a bacteria, or a pebble, or a nail, or a molecule, or an atom, or an electron, or a boson, or a foton; in short: any entity.

- Are you the only decider?

- Decider?

- The one who decides to interfere or not?

- We are talking too much about interception. For all practical purposes: it does not happen. Am I the only observer? No, I am not. I mentioned that before.

- You indicated that you have counterparts to all particles in our universe. Would the other observers also have counterparts to all particles in our universe?

- In a sense: yes.

- Could the other observers, very rarely of course, also manipulate a photon?

- I do not want to talk about that anymore. There is no manipulation of photons worth mentioning.

- I know — but could he, the other observer?

- Yes, in theory it could.

- ‘It’?

- Yes. The other observer is an intelligence like myself. Not a he or a she.

- Strictly theoretically — if two observers could trick photons, in doing so, would they collaborate or compete?

- That’s human speak. ‘Collaborate’ and ‘compete’ imply a strategy to achieve an effect in the future. I observe here and now. No future; no past. So no collaboration and no competition.

- This does not sound consistent to me. You have no strategy and yet once in a while you intercept a photon to start a love affair. That is a strategy, isn’t it?

- You are being difficult. If it is a strategy it is not in time. It is instantaneous. And now I come to think of it: try to see the manipulated photon as a correction, rather than an interception. Making sure things are as they are meant to be, here and now.

- I understand, I think. But in the here and the now there could be such a thing as ’envy’, couldn’t there?

- Envy?

- Indeed. Envy — between two intelligences?

- In theory envy could only arise if the two intelligences have different favourites.

- Well, that is a possibility, isn’t it?

- No, it is not.

- Is observing with multiple intelligences more fun than observing alone?

- Fun is not an element in all of this.

- Let me rephrase that: is observing us with multiple intelligences less boring than observing us just by yourself?

- Don’t take too literally what I said about boredom. I just wanted to indicate that ‘something’ is preferable over ‘nothing’. The number — I say that because you are a counting human being — the number of observers is irrelevant.

- Do you make bets? I mean: you observe and you know the deterministic laws so you could make predictions and the other intelligence could make other predictions and you could make a bet on that.

- Betting implies different options. There are no options in a deterministic system.

- People make choices. The boy in your example could have decided to go back home after he had missed his train. Then the nail-trick would have failed.

- You are turning this conversation into a roller-coaster. You hop from collaboration and competition to envy, from envy to fun, from fun to betting and from betting to the very difficult subject of ‘free will’. Where do you want to go? What do you want from me?

- I apologise. This is a thrilling interview and each reply you give triggers numerous more questions.

- I appreciate that. It is overwhelming within your context. To answer your question: no, that boy would not have decided to go home after missing the train. He just could not. Believe me.

- So there is no free will.

- Sure there is. It was the boy’s free will to catch the next train. He could have decided something else, but he did not.

- But you just said he was bound to catch the second train.

- Think of it like this. Imagine this boy was your father and the girl in the second train was your mother. You are here. So no way your father would have chosen to go back home after missing his train.

- But that is after the fact.

- ‘After the fact’ is a time statement. If past, present and future are compressed into here and now there is no time. In that ‘now’ your father took the second train — out of free will — and all other options are non-existent.

- I have trouble accepting that everything that happens has been pre-programmed. What about probability? Chance?

- Probability is required for those who cannot comprehend the full complexity of the system. It is basically filling a gap of knowledge. If you could observe all interactions the dice are making while being thrown, you would know what number of dots would be on top, before the dice would have come to a stop.

- Yeah. I have heard that before. I do recall that the deterministic view is challenged by quantum physics: the uncertainty principle states that position and speed cannot be exactly known at the same time. If the speed is known, the position is not and vice versa. Doesn’t that leave room for chance in the system?

- Well, I can’t go into much detail there since that would go beyond your four dimensions, but the uncertainty principle is more about what one can measure or not. Just because you cannot measure it, does not mean it is not there.

- Isn’t it more fundamental than that? I mean, there is mathematical proof that a particle cannot be at a certain location and at the same time have a known momentum?

- Indeed. But that mathematical system too, is the product of what human beings can observe. Or better: the product of those observations that human scientists can project in their brains. Your models of the universe are based on and restricted by your five senses. In the brain, these five senses create perceptions of the world, of the universe. These perceptions create an image, an idea of the universe that is by no means complete, for limited by what was perceived, not taking into account what was not perceived. True, some aspects that were not perceived can be deduced, but many other key elements are not. Some of your snakes can sense infrared light; they see more of the world than you do — especially in the dark. Imagine the human race would not have developed the sense of sight, but would still be as intelligent as it is now. The moon and the stars would not have been observed and would be non-existent in the mathematical and physics models of the universe created by that blind species. Hence their models would be different from yours and possibly less accurate.

- But with our instruments we can make things visible that our senses do not directly perceive. We can see all wavelengths in the universe, far beyond the range the naked eye can observe. Doesn’t that complete the picture?

- It makes it more comprehensive, but far from totally complete. For the exact picture you need way more senses than sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch.

- How many more?

- Humans and numbers! Going along with that, ideally 10⁹⁰, about as many as there are particles in your universe. And not actually 10⁹⁰ senses, but 10⁹⁰ ‘entangled’ particles. That is the ultimate perception of your universe. No abstraction, no simplified idea. A 101 immediate picture, without your inadequate sequence of conversions from entity to signal to perception to signal to idea. The observation needs to be here and now. Your observations are always in the past. Not only when you observe galaxies, many lightyears away. Also when you see and hear your lover laugh: first the signal needs to reach you with the speed of light or the speed of sound; then that signal needs to be transferred through your nervous system and processed by your brains. What you are perceiving ‘now’ has happened dozens of milliseconds in the past. That impairs your view of the universe and your physical models thereof.

- Phew. That is not very encouraging for our scientists.

- Oh, I do not intend to discourage. Despite their limited perception, your scientists are doing an excellent job. Their observations keep on improving and extending and their models become better all the time. And despite the limitations there is still a lot to be discovered that will help to improve their models even more.

- I hope so. In any case, according to you the uncertainty principle does not add chance and probability to the deterministic model of the universe.

- I am afraid it does not.

- You mentioned that our mathematical models are not universal, but inaccurate because of the limitations of our senses. So isn’t one plus one always two, irrespective of our senses?

- Within your context, one plus one may not be the problem. The problem is more that your mathematical system does not completely match with your physical reality. Take Pi for instance. It’s size cannot be precisely established because it’s decimal representation never ends. Yet it is being used to calculate mathematically the size of the surface area of a circle. That obviously is finite and could be measured to perfect precision with the ideal instruments. Mathematically final precision can never be reached because one could always become more precise by adding one more digit to Pi. So Pi does not seem to represent physical reality. Incidentally, Pi is also a factor in the mathematical formula for the uncertainty principle you were referring to. In any case, your mathematical systems are limited by the three spatial dimensions you can maximally observe.

- But our math can deal with way more than three dimensions!

- That is true. But your higher dimensions are like extensions of the three you are familiar with. If you would have had senses for a fourth and a fifth spatial dimension your math would look different, trust me.

- And we would know Pi more precisely?

- Perhaps.

- And we would better comprehend the deterministic nature of our universe?

- I would think so, yes.

- Now, you call yourself an observer. In one of our physical models, Quantum Mechanics, the observer plays a crucial role. Basically it states that things, particles, are a collection of possibilities, until one observes them. Only then one particular state is fixed and all other options are eliminated. Could it be that your support for the deterministic view results from you being an observer, fixing the states of things by observing and annihilating all other options in the process?

- Ah! I already wondered when you would bring up Schrödinger’s cat. Interesting, very interesting! We need to be precise here. Some of your physics state that measuring fixes the state, others use the term observing. There is a difference you know. If it is about observing, would the fate of the cat be determined if a child, knowing nothing about quantum physics, would look at the state of the radioactive particle in the cat’s box? Or a monkey? Or an ant? Or a robot? Let’s assume that things not just materialize by being observed, but by being observed and understood. How much knowledge and how much intelligence would be required to trigger the materialization? How complete would the understanding have to be? Would the observation of a high school kid do, or would it require a PhD. student? And how about everything in the universe that was already there before there were humans to name, observe and study them? Did dinosaurs not exist until man discovered their fossils?

- Well, there is the double slit experiment, showing that particles behave as light or as waves depending on the detection method. I think there is even evidence that the results of such an experiment are changed retroactively if the data are only observed long after the experiment has ended. That’s like creating things in the past. So why not dinosaurs?

- Do you really believe that all things are created by being observed? I think there is a certain arrogance to that model of your physics, taking into account that man has only shared the tiniest possible fraction (less than one thousandth of a percent) of the existence of your universe.

- Well, that is irrelevant if everything can be created retroactively, the universe included.

- And mankind itself included as well! That would render man his own thought experiment.

- Perhaps. Is that any weirder than our universe being the entangled projection of a particle cloud in another dimension representing an extraterrestrial intelligence?

- Well, in the first model I do not seem to play a part and in the second I do. And here I am, conversing with you.

- You could be a product of my thought experiment too….

- Thank you very much!

- Now the other thing I have read is that even in absolute vacuum, particles can come to existence and then disappear again. This seems to be a random process. Is that at odds with your deterministic view or are you creating those particles?

- I am certainly not creating them. I am just observing. And they are not real particles, they are virtual partials. Anyway, currently to your scientists this seems a random process. That is because they do not understand the underlying principles. Yet, I should add.

- So again there is no underlying probabilistic model?

- No. They had to emerge when they did because of where they came from.

- And went back to?

- Possibly, although that may not be where they came from.

- Are these virtual particles appearing and disappearing in and out of vacuum coming from and going to the other dimensions you are observing?

- It is better to regard them as part of your universe.

- Is our universe connected to other universes? In other ways than through you, I mean. Are they connected through the singularities at the end of black holes for instance?

- Singularities cannot connect. Two singularities lying side by side are no different from one singularity, and no different from two singularities endlessly apart. In all cases it would be nothing connecting to nothing.

- So where are these other universes and where are they compared to yourself?

- Now that is very hard to explain. Because of the problem of dimensions that you cannot project in your brain. Imagine your universe as two-dimensional. One dimension is space and the other is time. Something like a flying carpet composed of 10⁹⁰ particles. Anything, anywhere, anytime. Now imagine there are more flying carpets like that. It is something like that.

- Do these flying carpets touch?

- Well, they are two-dimensional clouds of particles, so those clouds could partly mix. Like two overlapping holograms. But we are only talking one-dimensional intercepting lines here. So not observable in either universe.

- Particles also have a wave character, ultimately like vibrating strings. Waves can show interference. Does that happen between wavicles form different universes?

- There is interference, yes, but the strings remain in their own universe. Nevertheless their behavior may be affected by strings in other universes. I cannot deny that.

- Does your own particle cloud have intercepting lines with these universes as well? And interferences?

- No, no, of course not. How do I explain this? Do you know Socrates’ allegory of the cave?

- I do. People are chained in a cave facing away from the exit. All they can see are moving shadows on the wall. That’s their reality. They have no idea what the creatures look like that cause the shadows. They don’t even know these creatures exist. So they have an incomplete view of reality.

- Indeed, ‘incomplete’ is a euphemism. ‘Distorted’ is more like it. To Socrates philosophers, so scientists, are like those chained people, watching projections and taking them for real. Clever guy! This is still a very valid analogy.

- But actually you did bring up this allegory to explain your relationship to the multiverse.

- O yes, indeed, I did, didn’t I?

- So what are you: the creatures, the chained people or the shadows? And what are the universes?

- Eh, yeah, well. It’s not that simple. You see, what the chained people don’t realize is that some of the shadows they observe are their own. But having said that I am not the chained people and I am not a shadow.

- In the allegory the chained people are the observers. You said that you are primarily an observer. I really had expected that you would claim to be the chained people.

- Chained? Me? Well, maybe the cave story doesn’t work as well as I had expected. Maybe ‘the creatures’ is in fact a wayang puppeteer giving a performance of shadow puppetry. With the chained people the puppeteer is watching the shadows. He observes the shadows he creates and the shadows of the people responding to his puppets. He creates the shadow of a bird and the chained people try to catch it. They cannot of course. Not only because they are chained. Primarily because one just cannot catch shadows, but the chained people don’t know that.

- So you are the great puppeteer who creates shadows of universes and observes them. In addition you observe us observing your shadows as well as you observe our shadows that we do not recognize as such. Again, you seem to be playing a much more active role than you seemingly want to admit.

- No, no, you got it all wrong. The way the shadow play enrolls is determined. There is no active intelligence involved. And you are not the chained people. How could you? You would not be able to see all universes on the wall.

- So who are the chained people? And what and where is the wayang puppets for that matter?

- I don’t know! As I said: on second thought the analogy does not fit at all. It is better imagining me as a kid watching a cartoon of universes on television.

- Are you God?

- Am I God? Define ‘God’. You guys have so many!

- The creator of all. The eternal. The one to worship and to fear. Big brother watching us, or watching over us, or both.

- That one I am not. Remember, I am not the only intelligence out here.

- OK, so maybe there are several gods. Like the ancient Greeks used to believe. Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite, Juno, Poseidon. Is it like that? Are you Apollo?

- I am not Apollo. Of course not. Apollo is a myth. But as an analogy the Greek gods could do, probably.

- The Greek gods were quite envious!

- Yes, so it was told. But as I said, I am not a Greek god. However, I am one of the intelligences outside your world and outside your universe and I am observing you and your world and your universe, amongst others. Your universe is represented in me. Some of your people might call that ‘god’.

- A rather passive god, I would say.

- So be it.

- So like a god you are watching over us. Are you also the Creator of men, of the world, the universe?

- Because of my eh, what we called ‘entanglement ‘ with your world and your universe I like to see myself as part of the creative processes in your universe. Entangled particles change exactly at the same time and it is difficult to determine which one started it, which one took the initiative so to speak. So let’s say I am for fifty percent accountable for the creative processes in your world. Call it ‘inspiration’. That is different, mind you, from active interception.

- How is that different? I don’t quite understand.

- Trust me, it is. See it like the difference between cooperation and giving orders.

- OK, I think I get the idea. Earlier we were discussing the wave character of particles. We mentioned strings. What do you think of the string theory our physicists have come up with?

- It is an interesting venue. I would suggest they continue working on it.

- Are they on the right track?

- Well, it’s complicated. In a way they are. It it is like they explore a labyrinth from the inside, trying to find the central watchtower and the exit. They attempt to map in their brains all the walls and alleys of the maze. That’s hard to do and cumbersome because many alleys are misleading, going nowhere, to dead ends. Of course they don’t know which alleys these are. There is the need for a coincidence of the right bright idea and the right new instrument in order to look at the maze from a different angle. Like a bright young scientist suggesting to use a drone generating live images above the maze , streamed to the cell phones of the scientists inside. Then, what first looked complicated, with all kinds of intertwined twists and turns, becomes more straightforward.

- Is the soul residing in strings?

- What kind of question is that? What makes you connect a concept like the soul to string theory?

- I don’t know. Just a hunch. Both are of a dimension we cannot comprehend. What I am asking, I guess, is: is the soul part of the physical reality, just neurons and synapses connecting and firing, or is it something beyond that?

-Indeed, besides your holy grail to unify general relativity to quantum mechanics, the existence — yes or no — and if yes, the nature of the soul is mankind’s major quest. Look here. If you are talking neurons you are on the particle track. I don’t expect that your Large Hadron Collider will, after the Higgs boson, detect a soul particle. For ’soul searching’ you would go to the area of waves and vibrations or fields of energy maybe.

- Do you have a soul? You certainly don’t have neurons, I presume.

- Do I look like an intelligence lacking a soul to you?

- I apologize. I guess there is no such thing like an intelligence without a soul.

- Ah, now you are jumping too quick. Until recently you may have been right within your context. But with artificial intelligence arising in your world that will be less obvious. I suppose there might be general consensus, some day, that intelligent robots, computers, machines and devices have no soul.

- Machines have no empathy. Is soul synonymous to empathy?

- I don’t think so. Robots could be programmed to simulate empathy. That does not give them a soul. There are quite some people in your world lacking empathy altogether but I would not deny them a soul.

- We call them heartless and — in that sense — heart and soul are more or less the same thing.

- Maybe. Alright, I think I am agreeing to the thought that intelligence and empathy are important elements of the soul.

- So does a dog have a soul? Dogs are quite smart and they show empathy.

- But they miss the most important element of a soul.

- And that is?

- They don’t ask the ‘Why?‘ question!

- The ‘Why?‘ question?

- Yes. Dogs don’t wonder: ‘Why is it the way it is — how did it come about?’, nor: ‘Why is it the way it is — to what end?’.

- So ingredients of the soul are intelligence, empathy and the why-question.

- You phrase it well. These are some of the important ingredients. There may be more.

- It looks like you acknowledge the concept of a soul. Now the key question about a soul is: if the body dies, does the soul die with it or does it live on?

- Let me ask you another question: if the body dies and decomposes, do its composing wavicles and strings die with it?

- They don’t because they were not living in the first place.

- Don’t be a smart ass now. I’ll rephrase: if the body ceases to exist, do its composing strings cease to exist as well?

- No. They continue to exist and are being recycled.

- Excellent! And their energy and vibrations continue to reflect some of the energy and information from what was regarded as a soul.

- And would those vibrations with that information have an impact on the soul of a new body that happens to contain the wavicles and strings that carry them?

- You bet!

- Reincarnation?

- If you like…

- I could imagine that the majority of the wavicles or strings will not end up in a new organism, not for a long time at least. So the wavicles that do, are kind of special. Would these have your special attention as a supervisor?

- This is the first time you are using the term ‘supervisor’ for me. Why is that?

- Just by accident, I suppose. But actually I like it. Supervisor sounds just a little less passive than observer.

- Well it sounds too active to my liking. Why would I have special attention for the reincarnating particles, as you call them?

- Because interfering with these would potentially have more impact than messing with all the particles outside organisms.

- There you go again. We are not messing around with particles. We are not particle-supervisors.

- But you will have to make choices as to which particles to select as targets for your rare interceptions. Would you make those choices all by yourself ? Or would that require consensus with other intelligences? Would you have debates with your colleague-intelligences on what particles to target?

- You have yourself carried away again with the interference thing. I told you: forget about it!

- I think I just want to find out how the different observing intelligences interact, if at all. Is it like playing chess? After all you compared your observing with a game.

- Playing chess means making moves. For all practical purposes we do not make moves. I regret I brought up the photon thing. I only admitted to adjusting photons, didn’t I, in very exceptional cases? I have never mentioned touching other particles at all. What do you want to suggest? You guys are subject to a deterministic framework of physics. In the rare situations where we bent the course of a photon it is to correct minor flaws in that system, rather than to overrule it.

- Why would you observe a system that is determined to evolve in only one possible way? Isn’t the fun of observing to be surprised?

- I told you: this is not about fun.

- OK. I will rephrase: isn’t observing something that is bound to evolve in only one particular way just as boring as observing nothing?

- I beg to differ. Observing something is better than observing nothing, even if that something is a fixed process.

- A fixed process that needs corrections once in a while. Is that the purpose of your observations: to detect errors and correct? Is the purpose of your eternal life: quality control of our universal system? That may be not as boring as observing nothing but it is getting close. How much intelligence does one need for that?

- You are being impertinent.

- And what if you miss an error and omit to correct it? What are the consequences of that, given all the butterfly effects of the system? And if you do miss a correction, do you get punished? By whom? I bet you will be punished a lot given all the misery on earth. There must be an awful lot of imperfections you neglect to correct.

- Now you are falling back to the old cliche: blame the gods. Let me set the record straight here. I am not responsible for the disasters of your world. Disasters of nature are not ‘acts of God’. They are the result of the laws of physics and chemistry. At least, they were until recently. What will happen in the future because of mankind destroying its own habitat is your own responsibility altogether. If an Inuit keeps a fire burning inside to stay warm he is not to blame the gods for his igloo collapsing upon him. Likewise, I am not responsible for natural disasters, nor for all the suffering men afflict upon one another. That’s your own responsibility, free will or not.

- Thank you very much for being clear on that.

- I think I have a little bit of a better understanding of what you are. The picture is far from complete though and seems incoherent at times. Somehow I have the feeling you were a bit evasive.

- I have tried not to be. But it is not easy for me to speak at your level of understanding. It is better if you have no impression of me at all, than a false one. I did not want you to get the wrong idea, that’s all.

- So would you be able, at my simple level of understanding, to give it one more try and summarize what you are?

- How about this? I am collections of information, kind of entangled with all particles of multiple universes and condensed on one photon where there is no time, no past, no future; only here and now. Particles are waves and frequencies and amplitudes of waves are determined by energy and particles have mass and your Einstein has shown that mass is nothing else than energy divided by the speed of light squared. So I am all information from multiple universes represented by the energy of a photon at the speed of light, here and now, with no uncertainty about ‘where’ when you know ‘when’ or about ‘when’ when you know ‘where’.

- That still sounds a bit cryptic to me, but thank you very much for this interview.

- You are welcome, young lady, my pleasure. Keep up that kind, yet persistent inquisitive quality of yours. With that you may serve your species well.