Document Sample
book Powered By Docstoc


Table of contents

Introduction : Is God mad?                       Page 2

Chapter 1 : The paranormal                            5

Chapter 2 : All times... at the same time             11

Chapter 3 : Memory, life and death..                  24

Chapter 4 : Is the paranormal normal                  35

Chapter 5 : Time travel                               50

Chapter 6 : The memory of water                       61

Chapter 7 : Encounter with quantum mechanics          63

Chapter 8 : Last hurdle                               74

Chapter 9 : Conclusio                                 76


Chapter 10 : Materialism                              78

Chapter 11 : Beyond religion                          80

Chapter 12 : The philosophical after world            85

Chapter 13 : A materialistic after world              87


'And you cannot move at all in Time, you cannot get away from the present moment'.

'My dear sir, that is just where you are wrong. That is just where the whole world has gone
wrong. We are always getting away from the present moment.'

H. G. WELLS (The Time Machine)


Certain accredit to Eratosthenes and others to Aristotle the idea that the Earth is round.
However, it is highly likely that the Pythagoreans were already considering this two or three
centuries earlier. After all, the horizon is perceived by the eye as being curved and boats seem
to sink into the sea as they disappear into the distance. Is it not also true that when one climbs
to the top of a mountain, one can see further and further into the distance, and in all

Yet two thousand years later when Christopher Columbus left to look for what he believed
was the new route to the Indies, people still believed that his adventure ... and the World ...
would both end at the limits of the Sargasso Sea.

It is not an exaggeration to say that all of the mad ideas that have punctuated the history of
mankind, to claim that we live on a sphere was without a doubt the wildest. The Universe had
to have a top and a bottom, therefore the Earth had an upper and lower part. However, as
everyone knows, things are made so that what is up always falls downwards. Therefore,
unless one is lucky enough to be born at the very top of the sphere, we will unavoidably slide
and fall towards the infernal abyss. To pretend that men could live on the other side of the
World head down and with their feet in the air was so crazy that you would have to be
possessed by the Devil not to realise that it was nonsense.

The incongruity of an idea stems from its discord with what is considered as being true. If,
however, one can replace this truth with one that is less restrictive, then the notion of
absurdity disappears. Thus, when Isaac Newton explained that a force of attraction, called
Gravity existed, which meant that "down" was under our feet and above our heads was "up",
it seemed totally normal that we could amble so freely on a sphere. Yet to this day we still
experience the same gut terror as our ancestors when as children we learn that the Earth is
round and also the same inner relief that we were born "on top"!

Indeed, of all the madcap ideas, the Earth being round had to take the biscuit. All of which did
prevent it from being true.

The craziness of an idea does not prevent it from being exact. Scientific history is one long
succession of absurd ideas only a few of which turned out to be sound. But even then, people
had to accept them...

We can already affirm with the greatest of convictions that the idea that we are going to
defend here is most probably even crazier than the idea that the Earth is round.

We are talking here about the simultaneity of times.

In other words, together we are going to see that it is totally reasonable to believe that all
times exist at once. Or, to be more precise, to accept that whilst you are reading these lines
there is another "you" who has just walked into the bookshop to buy this book and another
"you" already turning the last page. One is being born and the other dying.... Have I made
myself clear?

Every chain of reasoning needs to have a starting point. Ours will be the paranormal. Do not
worry, this does not mean that we will ask you to believe in such phenomena. The author has
merely chosen this path which he knows well, but others no doubt exist which are closer to
your own beliefs or more closely linked to a scientific perspective. All roads lead to Rome, so
for those who want to visit the Eternal City, it does not matter which journey leads you there.
Once you have completed your visit, you can always take a different route home if you did
not enjoy the outward journey.

The paranoramal path could, however, be criticized for developing hypotheses based upon
facts which are themselves questionable. Our ancestors who reasoned upon the Earth's
roundness were at least sure that the Earth existed. The same cannot be said for our choice

However, this should not discourage us. To develop models from purely theoretical data is not
a first in science. The family of elementary particles was given coherence due to the idea that
they were made up of hypothetical quarks, fundamental particles which it is impossible to
isolate because they stick together more strongly when you try to separate them! We suggest
that there exists an anti-time unfolding opposite to ours. In all seriousness we imagine that
there are parallel universes, with tree-like branches being constantly created. All of which
accompanied by a Big Bang or Big Crunch! What can be said about "wormholes" allowing
for shortcuts through time? And what should we think of the fluctuations in the vacuum
where the "folds" would be creators of matter? Finally, how can we accept the extraordinary
quantum mechanics theory which explains so many things but with staggering consequences
that would make Einstein shiver?

We could spend a whole book just listing the theories which stem from other theories, which
in turn stem from others, and so on... However, this in no way means that science is but a
house of cards which could crumble at the slightest breeze. The hypotheses maintain each
other and are also based on observation and laboratory experimentation. They are sufficiently
entwined so that should a wall fall down, the rest of the building would hardly be affected.
The demolished wall will be replaced by another with a more futuristic design and then work
will continue.

Some subjects are damned from the outset. The same applies for the most controversial
paranormal phenomena. Why is this so? Firstly, because we have such great difficulty in
getting them into a laboratory. Secondly, which is worse, because they go against our
scientific knowledge and are a real challenge to the most elementary common sense.

But what is common sense? What is reasonable and what is not? In whose name can we
declare that one thing is sensible and another folly? We have a terrible tendency to behave as
if we had created the universe, as if we knew all about its ins and outs, when in fact our
ignorance far surpasses our knowledge. And we pontificate : this is true, this is false...

This attitude has, of course, an explanation. We live in a universe that we do not understand
and which is totally beyond us. We ask of science that it reassures us, and scientists want this
above all. Is God mad? Does everything that surrounds us have a meaning? Science answers :
yes, there are laws; yes, there is a logic; no, God is not mad.

Yet this certainty crumbles when it is presented with a daring hypothesis. Something new
means something dangerous. Are you sure that this is but a crack in the building? Maybe
everything will collapse? Can you confirm that God is not mad? To tell the truth no one can
confirm anything - either that God is mad, or that he is sane, or that the words mad and sane
have a sense, or that God exists, or that to exist means anything. We are but puny humans on
a small sphere lost in phenomenal infinity. And we scratch our heads.

Scratching our heads is exactly what we shall do throughout this book. After all, what else can
we do?


If we disregard the majority of people who make fun of the paranormal, there remains a small
core of spirited people divided into two furiously opposed groups, those for and those against
the idea. Both parties think that they belong to a privileged elite as opposed to a bunch of
inbred idiots. After much thought, and to be totallly unbiaised, I think that it is fair to say that
intelligence and stupidity are equally shared between the two groups. All you have to do to
confirm this is read the wealth of partisan literature that exists. As for who is right, well....

There are many lines of reasoning that argue for paranormal phenomena, but there are just as
many to oppose them. Therefore, instead of inflaming what has always been a sterile debate
and which stems more from faith than from reason, we shall follow a very different path. We
shall choose, arbitrarily, the side of those "for" the paranormal. And we shall do nothing to
defend this choice. Our only goal will be to ask what our choice implies. For nothing is
decided gratuitously. Every act and every decision have consequences. If you decide to go
and settle in Lapland, no one has the right to judge if your decision is wise or stupid. It is your
choice, and that is that. On the other hand, when evaluating the consequences of this choice,
no one could be wrong in predicting that you will never be too hot out there.

We could have just as easily chosen the side of those against the paranormal. But then our
discourse would have been short-lived. Once you decide that something does not exist, it is
hard to talk about the consequences of its non-existence. Consequently, the choice was more
or less already made for us.

We shall therefore pretend that we believe in the paranormal and see where that logically
leads us.

We have embarked on a very difficult journey. Paranormal phenomena rely nearly exclusively
on personal testimony and they seem to have a strange allergy to experimentation, preferring
to appear rather dramatically when least expected.What is the troubling, malicious force that
can move a piano in a haunted house yet cannot move a match in a lab? I am, of course,
exaggerating, but this is the sort of thing that happens. A phenomenon does not let itself be
manipulated. However, we could probably say the same for all that pertains to living beings
and more particularly matters of the mind.

If we pour sulphuric acid onto copper we obtain copper sulphate and hydrogen gas. This is
true and can be checked in any laboratory throughout the world and at any time. However, if I
get a fit of the giggles whilst watching a funny film, there is practically no chance that this
will happen again if I am shown the same film in a laboratory. I can even assert that the more
I see the film, the less I shall laugh. This absence of laughter would lead those undertaking the
experiment to logically conclude that I never laughed at all and that my story about a fit of the
giggles is, dare I say, hot air. Maybe you think that there is no need to compare real events,
such as a chemical reaction, with psychological facts, such as a fit of the giggles? If
paranormal phenomena exist and are as we decribe them, we should accept that they are
always triggered by the physical presence of a person in a particular mental state. The
phenomenon-subject-mind dependence explains alone the difficulties that exist in laboratory
experimentation - laboratories are very uninspiring places.

Another obstacle, unique to paranormal activities, is the difficulty that people have in
describing their experiences. This is frustrating for the researcher but not really surprising. In
everyday life there are more common place phenomena which are already daunting to

For example, nothing is more straightforward than sight. However, this phenomenon is as
extraordinary for someone who is blind from birth as the paranoramal is to us. For a blind
person, the position of an object is determined by touch. If we tell him that there is a chair at
ten metres, he will imagine that sighted people have a mystical sense which allows them to
touch things at a distance. We will then explain that this is not so and give the example of a
radio that you do not need to touch in order to roughly determine its position. After this he
will imagine that all objects have a sound that he cannot hear, apart from radios. All of this
does still not explain how we can hear if a table is round or square-shaped...

We know that it is not possible to describe sight to someone who has never seen. Even our
vocabulary is ill-suited to the task. Someone born blind can conceive what is round or square,
but how can we describe such airtight terms as : bright, dark, shiney, dull, transparent, white,
red or blue? How can you explain colours to a blind person when we ourselves do not really
know what they are? Seeing colours is so natural to us that we forget to what extent the
phenomenon is incredible. Light is made up of electromagnetic waves where different
frequencies equal different colours. Normally our brain, which analyses the signals received
by the eyes, should tell us that a curtain sends waves of one frequency and that a carpet sends
waves of another frequency. The same applies to everything that we see.

Yet instead of receiving a number corresponding to the frequency of the object seen, we in
fact receive a colour sensation which is invented by our brain. This strange fact is so
extraordinary that we are unable to explain how our brain managed it. Yet the brain we use to
reason is the same one that invented the colours! We should therefore not be too surprised if
someone who has provoked a paranormal phenomenon cannot tell us how he did so. We
should also remember that all of this seems to take place in our subconscious mind.

Unfortunately, the paranormal is more complicated than phenomena which shy away from
experimentation or which defy our perception, for it can present itself to us in an unbelievable
variety of ways. The following paragraphs illustrate this point.

Let us start with prodigious mental arithmetic. Some see in this a performance based on
training. To effortlessly decompose into square or cubed roots, or to the power of five and to
many decimal places any number, whilst chatting about the weather, is as unbelievable as
watching an athlete jump several hundred feet into the air just because he is supposedly better
trained than the others. The same applies for people with a phenomenal memory. To recite a
whole newspaper or the trigonometric tables or the complete works of a particular author to
the nearest comma, after only one reading, bears no comparison to those who claim to have a
good memory.

Then there is telepathy. Amateur radio fans use a CB, but without a receiver, joined by some
mysterious waves that convey sounds as well as images, smells, sensations, thoughts and even
knowledge, and all of this regardless of obstacles or distance encountered. A person can speak
a language that they never studied or even heard of. This is called xenoglossophilia, but is
known under the more general term of clairvoyance or metagnosia. A person can also
compose music equal to the great composers without being able to read music, or paint like
the masters or write in the style of imminent novelists (automatic painting or writing). This
can happen either spontaneously or when in a trance, via hypnosis or even during sleep.

There is also retrocognition providing us with memories from before our birth or the opposite
precognition, which opens the doors of the future. These two phenomena play with the order
of time. And there are also the different phenomena dealing with movement. Telekenesis
which means moving objects at a distance, and psychokenesis involving influcencing how
dice roll or falling drops of water. And also levitation which alllows us to defy the law of
gravity at will.

We can also add to this list the luminous phenomena often associated with levitation and
which concern all, or some parts of the body, and the body can either resist flames, or on the
contrary produce them. We should not forget stigmata and other physical phenomena such as
miracles or paranormal healing. There are also the phenomena linked to hauntings such as
poltergeists or ghosts with their knocking sounds, and ectoplasmic activity, a speciality used
by the great mediums. We can also mention out of body experiences such as disembodiment,
incorporation , bilocation or ubiquity. There are also the cases of materialisation, which
involve creating objects from nothing or dematerialisation - sending them back to nothing.
Let us finish with reincarnation and disturbing near death experiences (NDE) and a whole
series of sub-categories filled with many more "-alogies" and "-ations".

This brief and no-doubt incomplete skimming over the subject shows to what extent the
paranormal problem is a confused and complex one. Even with the best will in the world, any
mind with a hint of scientific analysis would feel repulsion at the idea of starting on our
journey. Not only because the phenomena are surprisingly numerous, but without exception
they also have one point in common - they all seem to be irrational.

In order to clear the field slightly, we shall tidy up by removing the subjects which are the
least substantiated. Unfortunately, we do not know on which criteria to base this selection.
Depending on the criteria chosen, we could just as well keep everything or reject the lot. But
we shall try. If we cannot eliminate some categories, we can clean-up differently, just by
putting some order into this mishmash.

In order to do so we shall proceed using two different, yet very clear and simple lines of
reasoning, which strangely enough will lead us to the same conculsion. We can then start our
work proper.

First line of reasoning

It is not totally true to say, as we have just done above, that the only common point shared by
paranormal phenomena is their insanity. They have a second, maybe less obvious point in
common and that is their age.

Incidences exist throughout history. Whole libraries could be filled just with factual reports of
paranormal events. However far back in time one goes, they can always be found. They
appear in the most ancient sacred texts from India, in the Bible and in the traditions of nearly
all nations. They can in no way be confused with other curious phenomena such as the sun,
wind or storms which were attributed to the gods. Paranormal phenomena were perceived as
different and were attributed a particular status. In ancient Greece and Rome people would
talk about them with fervour, just as we do today.

However, science also exists since time immemorial. It was also cultivated by all peoples at
all periods even if for a long time it remained empirical. We know of the incredible
development in all branches during the last centuries.

How can it be then that science never encountered the paranormal, not even accidentally?
How come that with all of the various paranormal phenomena that exist, no one throughout
history has ever been able to explain even one? This seems incredible. In order to help solve
this mystery we shall use a comparison.

Let us presume that someone hides twenty or so coins in a furnished room and asks you to
look for them. It is obvious that without too much effort you would find at least one, five, or
even ten. With a bit more effort you would most probably find nearly all of them, presuming
that even after a thorough search one or the other clever hideaway slips your attention. The
only unecceptable possibility would be that despite all your efforts you find no coins. Yet this
is exactly what happens. How can we explain this absurd result?

There seems to be only one solution. All of the coins have been piled up and hidden in one
place! And as we have seen, a clever hiding place can elude investigation. If you do not find
the pile, you will obviously find no coins. However, if you so desire you can find all of them
at once.

Translated into paranormal terms this means that there does not exist, as we believe, a whole
variety of different yet unlinked phenomena, but rather a unique phenomenon which has to
this day escaped scientific investigation. This sole phenomenon could, for example, present
itself in different ways such as natural electricity which can manifest itself as light
(lightening), noise (thunder), shaking (muscle contractions), attraction or repulsion (electrical
charges). It was not that long ago that science discovered in the displacement of electrons a
single explanation for what seemed to be very different phenomena.

Maybe you are still not totally convinced that there is one unique phenomenon underlying the
paranormal. If this is so, here is a second line of reasoning which, although totally different
from the first, arrives at the same conclusion.

Second line of reasoning

Paranormal phenomena are many and varied, yet they seldom manifest themselves. It is not
every day that one can undergo such an experience. If libraries have been filled with eye
witness accounts, it is only due to the vast amount of individuals living on Earth and also the
long period of time during which these accounts have been compiled. Yet in statistical terms,
paranormal activity is rare. You cannot win the lottery and become a millionaire every day,
but if you take into account the number of lotteries that take place on the Earth each year,
such millionaires are, in fact, commonplace.

However, more rare are those people who have won the jackpout twice in a lifetime. Even
rarer are those that have won three or even more times. Such cases are practically nil.

Nonetheless, when dealing with the paranormal exceptional activities are commonplace.
People who only possess one gift are, in fact, few and far between. All of this leads us to
believe that talent attracts talent.

Statistics do not admit that people can win all of the time. Calculations help to evaluate
precisely the limits beyond which luck is no longer considered as chance. If too many people
win too often, then there has to be some trick involved! When dealing with the paranormal,
there must also be a trick or hidden explanation if a subject masters several paranormal
phenomena. If a man is capable of producing phenomenon A and phenomenon B, one can
assume, as these are very rare phenomena, that A and B have a common origin. If another
man is able to produce phenomena B and C, we can conclude that B and C also have a
common origin. The analysis of these two cases leads us to naturally deduct that as A=B and
B=C, then A=B=C. The number of double, triple or greater phenomena encountered in
literature on the paranormal enables us to link all observed phenomena. It is therefore logical
to imagine that a common origin and therefore a unique phenomenon lies at the base of all
paranormal activity. We thus neatly and completely join our first line of reasoning.

We could instinctively already group together some manifestations such as prodigious mental
arithmetic and use of memory, or telekenesis and levitation, or even retrocognition and
precognition. Now we are able to assert that all phenomena can be linked and we can say that
the following statement is true :

PHENOMENON, which can manifest itself in various ways.

Having established this, we can go on to the next stage.


This fundamental phenomenon, which lies at the base of the paranormal, is of vital
importance because it links together all of its different areas. If each part comes from a whole,
the study of any one of the parts can help us understand the whole. This idea is inspiring, but
confronts us with a difficult choice. How can we choose the best starting point from all of
those possible?

When a policeman is presented with a description of a suspect he will, of course, pick the
apparently most unusual feature. If the man is described as being tall, with brown hair, grey
eyes, thin-lipped and with giant green ears, the policeman will not pick out of a crowd all of
the tall men to see if they have brown hair, grey eyes and so on. He will obviously look first
for a man with giant green ears. Even if this chap has ash-blond hair and his eyes are less grey
than described, the policeman will feel that the giant-eared person he has found is highly
likely to be the suspect he was looking for.

Is there a paranormal phenomenon with giant green ears? Or to be more serious, is there a
phenomenon that is decidedly more unusual than the others?

We can immediately dismiss prodigious mental arithmetic - not because the subject lacks
interest (it is one of the only paranormal phenomena that can be reproduced at will), but
because it has to some extent become commonplace. Calculators have turned all of us into
arithmetical genius'. Would telepathy be a better candidate? Probably, but due to speech, mail
and telephones we can easily do without it. What about telekenesis and levitation? We have
remote controls, lifts or even helicopters to move objects or our own body in space, even if
these are not exact equivalents, of course. Technical creations are far from replacing the
paranormal, but it is true that scientific progress has made us less demanding of the
supernatural. What about miracle healing? This would, of course, be ideal, but we have
medicine which, rumour has it, is already making miracles. So what do we do? There is no
point in going on because the choice is obvious. The most extraordinary, astounding and
outrageous phenomenon imaginable is without a doubt precognition!

Precognition is such an outrageous idea that one might wish to dismiss it as unsavoury and
strike it off the list of paranoramal phenomena for two reasons. Firstly, because it is highly
illogical to admit that you can explore a future which does not yet exist and secondly because
the idea itself is frightening. Just imagine what it would be like if we could witness our own,
particularly guesome death?..

Nonetheless, this is the subject that we will choose to start our attack on the paranormal
fortress. Later we shall see that we must temper any unpleasant ideas that this generates, for
our current way of approaching the subject is, in fact, fundamentally incorrect.

Choosing precognition as as a starting point has various advantages. Firstly, because it has
giant green ears. It is obvious that such an unruly problem cannot have a straighforward
solution. If so, it would have been discovered long ago. We should therefore expect that such
a scandalous problem, scientifically speaking, will have a scandalous solution. We are thus at
least certain that in choosing precognition as the starting point for our line of reasoning we
shall not come up with mundane results. Moreover, precognition has produced a vast quantity
of literature, for the subject frightens, but also fascinates people - just ask any fortune-teller.
This literature is not just the result of investigators who have collated eye-witness accounts,
but also the published results of serious research. Precognition is also interesting because one
can instinctively link it to other phenomena where time seems to play an all-important role :
retrocognition which is its opposite; phenomenal memory, prodigious mental arithmetic and
miracle healing (for their speed) and some aspects of clairvoyancy. Finally, on a personal
note, precognition is the only paranormal phenomenon that I have personally experienced. My
account is of little importance compared to other more extraordinary accounts published on
the subject, but at least it was first-hand. This was not a case of someone's brother-in-law's
next-door neighbour's daughter who heard from a friend that it happened to her sister's cousin.
Here is my brief, almost mundane story.

At the time I used to play the National Lottery every week with the vain hope that I could
improve my existence in some other way than through work. I then moved on to the Loto with
the same apalling results. In fact, in over forty years I only won once (which in itself is
practically paranormal!), and even then it was not a vast amount (I had correctly selected the
last five numbers in the draw). Although this was not a reason to gloat, it brought some spice
to my somewhat boring life. The amazing point in this story is not that I won, but that I knew
I had done so in advance. I usually bought the newspaper the day after the draw to get the
results. However, when I opened the newsagent's door on that particular day, I suddenly knew
for certain that I had won. It seemed so obvious that I then experienced what some people call
Knowing with a capital K This bears no ressemblance to the sort of subconscious hope that
one normally has when one is just about to look at a list of winning numbers. This was pure
certainty and (alas) it has only happened to me once.

I am sure that many of you have sensed a similar feeling of certainty about a future event. In
this case, you should know that rationalists (of which I am one - even if this displeases those
who use the term exclusively to describe themselves), offer two explanations for this
experience. The first is to pretend that in some subconscious way I could have heard the
winning numbers before going into the newsagents, such as on the radio. I would therefore
have unconsciously compared this list with the numbers on my ticket and thus have been
aware of the results. This seemingly plausible line of reasoning crumbles because it never
came into my mind to look at the number of the ticket that I bought. Once purchased, I would
always fold the ticket in two, without so much as a glance, and slip it into my wallet.
Therefore, as I did not know my number by heart it would be impossible for me to make the

slightest comparison, either consciously or unconcsiously. The second explanation that the
rationalists provide is more subtle and is often used in cases of precognition. This involves
inversing the order of events. The fact that I played implied a hope of winning. At each draw,
one unconsciously believes. Thus when one wins this hope is multiplied to the point that it
becomes a certainty. Yet here again the reasoning is spurious, for at the time I was already
interested by the paranormal and was perfectly aware of the dangers of auto-suggestion. I was
therefore immediately on my guard when this feeling of a "precognitive" certainty hit me
when I walked into the newsagents. I can therefore certify that I was not the subject of an
illusion due to an inversion of events.

If I have spent so much time on this example it is to show that even in the simplest cases one
has to be very cautious. The explanations put forward by psychologists do not have as sole
aim to deny the existence of the paranormal, but to limit its boundaries. Our mind loves to
believe the wildest things in all fields, for example that the moon is made of green cheese, and
we have to harness this desire. With training this quickly becomes second nature.

Before my own experience, I witnessed a case of precognition experienced by a close relative,
my grandfather. At 92 he was still as fit as a fiddle. I was therefore horrifed to hear that he
warned my father that he was going to die during the day and that he would like to see his
family one last time. Apprehensively, I went to visit him with my parents. I had never
witnessed a person's suffering and the fact that this was my grandfather only made the
experience more painful.

How great was my surprise, therefore, when I went into his room to find him smiling, sitting
up in bed propped up by two cushions. He seemed to be in fine form and his mischievous
eyes twinkled as they stared at us. He was obviously not dying and I wondered why his
warped sense of humour had pushed him to make such a sick joke. We asked him about his
health. Did he feel ill? Was he in pain? Did he feel any different from normal? Was there a
symptom that made him think that he was going to die soon? No! Nothing at all. He felt fine,
but nonetheless knew that he was going to die! We asked him how he could be so sure and he
looked at us as if we were idiots asking why one and one make two. "I know", he said, "that is
all". It was obvious that for him this statement was self-explanatory.

We listened to him telling happy stories from his life feeling more relaxed, convinced that this
was a false alarm. He was usually rather reserved, but surpised us by being talkative and full
of energy. At one point he pressed his cheek on the pillow as if to rest a while and moved no
more. He was dead!

I had already heard of people who had predicted the date of their death, but I never paid much
attention to it. I tended to think that this was due to chance. Many sick people think that their
last hour has come and for some of them this is so. These are obviously the cases that we hear
about. However, you will have understood that there is a big difference between someone
who is scared of dying because he feels the symptoms and a person who feels fine and who
"knows" that they are going to die, against all logic, and accepts the fact sereinely.

In his book "Awakenings", the neurologist Oliver Sackx tells the story of a female patient
who also suddenly felt that she was going to die. She was so convincing that they gave her a
full medical and this showed nothing that could prove to be fatal. That evening, she said

goodbye to the other patients in the common room and went to bed. She died during the night.
She also said that she "knew" she was not going to be there the next day and that she would
die during the night without being able to explain where this feeling of certitude came from.
How can you explain this "Knowing" which is so different from ours?

Next to the minor and simple phenomena there are obviously more spectacular cases. The
paranormal world seems to revel in isolated and unpredictable manifestations. I will not hide
the fact that I am very wary of people who claim that they can predict anything at any time.
However, one cannot deny that some people are more "gifted" than others. University
experiments undertaken by Rhine in the United States or Tenhaeff in the Netherlands are
adamant on this point. The case of the clairvoyant Gérard Croiset studied by Tenhaeff at
Utrecht Univeristy is particularly extraordinary and illustrative.

Croiset, like most allegedly genuine clairvoyants, had to be motivated in order to set off his
process of "prediction". Whilst having narrowly escaped from drowning when a boy (a
common danger in Holland, a country scattered with canals), he naturally felt inspired by the
disappearances of children believed to have drowned. He collaborated with the police
throughout his life and had a lot of sensational success in localizing bodies. On the other
hand, when dealing, for example with cases of theft he generally failed. He admitted of his
own free will that he was less motivated by such cases. To this brief portrait, and this is of
particular interest to us, we should add that his taste for panache and challenge led him to
become the expert in alarming chair allocation experiments. Here is a brief summary of how
things happened during such experiments.

Professor Tenhaeff warned Croiset that a chair allocation experience would take place on a
particular day in such and such a town. On the alloted day, in a house in the town, twenty-five
chairs numbered from 1 to 25 would be grouped into one room, and people were chosen at
random to sit on the chairs using the selection process decribed below.

Professor Tenhaeff would then ask Croiset if he could say something about the person who
would, for example, be seated on chair number 12. Croiset would think hard and then start to
speak : "I can see a woman, she has done this and that, her husband has travelled to such and
such a place, etc.." Everything that Croiset said, which was generally very detailed, was
recorded, then transcribed and sealed in an envelope, and entrusted to a third party, either a
bailiff or scientist.Tenhaeff would then contact the person who was going to organize the
experiment and who was totally unaware of Croiset's predictions. This person would then
invite people and ask them in turn to invite others. On the given day, the number of guests,
which usually out-numbered the number of chairs, would arrive at different times, depending
on their mode of transport and on the traffic encountered. In some cases a machine was even
placed at the entrance to the house and this distributed tickets numbered from 1 to 25 at
random. Each person sat on their alloted chair, depending on either their order of arrival or
their ticket number. Croiset would usually partake in the session (due to his thirst for fame).
When everyone was seated, the bailiff or scientist would open the envelope and read out loud
the contents. Only then would the people present be asked if one of them recognised
themselves in the description given. A lady stands up from chair number 12. She confirms
that she did do this and that and that her husband travelled to such and such a place, etc.

Unless there was a conspiracy implicating many scientists and lasting several years one has
trouble imagining the "trick" that could be involved here. In fact, there are other studies
undertaken by different researchers with other groups of people using different methodologies
which are just as impressive. Whatever the case, we can subjectively choose and draw our
own conclusions from this experiment, for no definite proof exists either one way or the other.

Let us suppose that precognition has been proven and admit that Croiset's case is an honest
illustration free from either deliberate or unconscious trickery. What can we deduce from

The first idea that comes to mind is that calculation could be involved. The paragnostic
would, in fact, be highly gifted and able to calculate future events starting from current ones.
However the conditions of the experiment do not allow such a hypothesis. How can he
calculate and know who will be invited to the meeting? How can he calculate the precise time
they will leave home and take into account the travel conditions on the day, and all of this
weeks in advance? How can he calculate which number will come out of the ticket machine?

These few questions show just how impossible the task is. It is not possible to calculate the

What is left then? Luck? Gérard Croiset is, in fact, just lucky? He says anything and by luck
he is right every time! We must admit that this is not very realistic.

So what should we do? Should we look to one of those wooly theories which claims that
ghostly beings living outside time could whisper the anwsers? Or does he have a mystical
sphere of timeless knowledge that he can dip into and question at will? Is this the work of
God? Such beliefs provide easy answers and we cannot refute them. Unfortunately, they are
sterile. They will only satisfy those dreamers who happily believe that you can replace
science, which they understand nothing about, with some kind of supernatural philosophy,
where everything can be explained without the slightest intellectual effort. They forget that
even if we could prove that ghosts exist, the mere fact that they are separate from nothingness
makes us ask what they are made of. Here again we look to science. Until we learn otherwise
science and its methods are irreplacable. They are essential if we want to make coherent
suggestions, even in such a controversial field as the paranormal. Unfortunately, in such
virgin territory we know of nothing that bridges the gap between science and the paranormal.
Therefore, the only thing we can lean on will be logic. It can be a dangerous tool to use, but
we must not forget that in one way or another it provides the medium upon which all of
science is based. Basically, we do not have any choice in the matter. It is now time to take the

If we accept that precognition is a reality, we will then have to admit that in certain
circumstances men receive information which comes from the future. Therefore, whether we
like it or not we have to admit that THE FUTURE HAS TO EXIST. Now, at this very
moment, at the same time as our present!

To admit that some sort of future already exists obviously means accepting that all futures
exist simultaneously, from the closest to the furthest away. It is equally obvious that all past
times exist in the same way. The reasoning that we have used for precognition also applies for
retrocognition. The past can never be more than the future of an even older past.

We therefore accept as a first maxim that :


The second question which springs to mind is what are these past and futures made up of .
The present, we know, is made of matter with molecules, atoms, particles etc. But what about
the other time scales?

Man has always liked to feel privileged in the Universe. When he did not know that the Earth
rotated, he believed that everything turned around the Earth, in other words, around himself.
This geocentric vision then had to make way for the idea that the Earth turned around the Sun
with eight other planets. Then man had to admit that the Sun was just another star rotating
with thousands of millions of others within a galaxy and that there are a staggering amount of
such galaxies, many of which remain uncounted.

Having been ridiculed in space, maybe we can shine in time and make our present a
privileged moment?

In this way only our present would be real and all other times would only exist virtually.
Things would happen in the same way as at the pictures. The present time is the image of the
film that is projected on the screen. The past would be the reel containing the images that
have already been shown and the future would be the reel with the images yet to be shown.
Only the image actually being projected would represent the present and this alone can be
considered as real. Even if the idea is very poetic, it lacks logic. Apart from implying
predestination, which is unpleasant to imagine, it also has the fault of unnecessarily
complicating the whole issue. Physicians already have enough problems unravelling the
thread of material reality, how will it be if we also impose a virtual reality on their work? It is
also preferable to attribute an equal reality to all time zones, even if this offends our inbred
self-centered vision of the world? This solution is more straightforward and logical. When, for
example, a clairvoyant such as Croiset receives a mental image, he lives this as reality. He can
describe real objects lit by real light with real photons which cast real shadows corresponding
to the Sun's angle relative to the place and time concerned. Contrary to events in dreams, the
clarivoyant sees no difference between a vision of the present and one from another time.

We shall therefore accept as our second maxim that :


If all times exist simultaneously and are equally real, a new question comes to mind.

Where can these times be found? Where is yesterday, and tomorrow? In which dimension are
they situated? We find space travel easy to understand, yet time travel seems impossible to
conceive, even in our wildest dreams. Our brain totally refutes the idea that something
material can be situated in a time other than ours. To try and imagine the inconceivable make
us feel uneasy and can even make us faint.

Yet as we shall see, nothing can be easier than to situate oneself in all times. You just need to
ask the question properly. For this is where the shoe pinches. We have been fed an incorrect
vision of the order of time, which makes it impossible for us to approach the issue sensibly.
The main unwilling culprit for this unfortunate sidetracking was H.G. Wells.

Wells is best known for his "scientifically inspired novels", as they were called at the end of
the last century. As far as we know he was the first to dream of a machine to travel through
time. He was, at least, the one who made this amazing machine popular, with such success
that science-fiction writers to this day still use it as inspiration, without, unfortunately,
changing the basic underlying principle one iota.

With Wells and his followers things always happened thus. The hero goes into a strange
machine inside a room. The machine cannot leave the room and in fact it is built so that it
cannot move. The traveller then sits down and with a manly determined look moves a cursor
in front of him to the year of his choice (in recent works, he types on a computer keyboard
and choses the date to the nearest second). Then, gritting his teeth, he pushes the "start"
button. The man and machine then just simply disappear, right under the noses of any

From the traveller's point of view the trip is not usually immediate. The hero has the time to
see the room and any spectators dissolve, after which he falls into a peculiar universe where
the strangest colours form spinning circles of light. He then dives at tremendous speed into a
dream tunnel. The momentum slows, stops and then an unknown landscape appears. He has

For nearly a century now writers and film makers have been selling the same old story. The
idea has been forced upon us to the extent that we no longer see that it is fundamentally

Let us be logical, even when writing a novel and even if time travel remains but a vision in
our minds.

Imagine that I would like to travel back in time twenty-four hours. I live on the Earth, but the
Earth moves in space. Yesterday it was in a different place from where it is today. Its position
in relation to the Sun and other planets has also changed between yesterday and now.
Therefore, if the twenty-four hour old Earth exists at the same time as the current Earth, it
cannot, of course, occupy the same position. The past Earth is at exactly the same place as our
current Earth twenty-four hours ago. The same can apply for all Earths and all times. Each
one has its own place in space. In relation to a summer Earth (where I am now), the Earth that
corresponds to winter is on the other side of the sun! Six months, i.e. half of the terrestrial

orbit, separate them. We can thus see just how absurd the notion of travelling in time without
leaving the current Earth is.

Likewise, even imaginary time travel loses the abstract element that made us feel giddy. To
travel in time is above all to travel through space - at least this is easy to imagine. If I want to
visit "yesterday", the first thing that I would do would be to climb into a rocket that would
take me to the space where "yesterday" can be found, i.e. twenty-four hours away if I travel at
the same speed as the Earth. When I get there I will, of course, only be able to see the
interstellar void. After all, if all times were visible and tangible, we would already know so!
Before we question this part of the problem, we must carefully note our third maxim :


This raises a new question. If all times are equally real, how come we can only see and touch
the present ?

If we imagine that the particles which make up matter can be seen as small solid marbles, it is
difficult to imagine that there can be no possible contact between different times. This
perception of matter has, however, greatly evolved during the centuries. Initially the marble
image was satisfactory and it seemed to solve the problem. At present, the area has become so
complex that no one dares to propose another image for the particles, or anything else, for that
matter. Everything is governed by a fiendish theory known as quantum mechanics, which to
this day cannot be demonstrated, not even intuitively. We shall come back to this in more
detail later.

The only thing that can help us now is that this theory privileges the idea that particles, and
matter in general, have a wave-like nature. However, one of the most spectacular
characteristics of waves is that they deliberately ignore each other when they have different
frequencies. This can be illustrated very simply.

The waves used for radio broadcasts are said to be electromagnetic just like light, infrared,
ultraviolet, X or gamma rays. The only thing that distinguishes them is their frequency, or
their wavelength (same difference). These waves travel in all directions and literally wash
over us, without there being any interference between them. This is how we can listen to a
radio station of our choice just by tuning our radio into the right wavelength. On the other
hand, if two transmitters operate on the same wavelength, we will capture both of them, and
the result will be a jumbled mix of sounds. Same wavelengths interfere, they do not ignore
each other.

Considering this strange wavelength behaviour, the laws of physics naturally guide us
towards a similar solution to help explain the lack of interference between different time
zones. It would not be too bold of us to presume that each time is characertized by a
frequency which is unique to it and renders it undetectable from another time on another
frequency. This implies that all particles which exist in a particular time zone have the same
frequency (at least when they interact).

We shall therefore note as our fourth maxim that :


We have just seen how believing in the paranormal, and particularly in precognition led us to
accept the simultaneity of all times. This hypothesis is scientific in the sense that it can be
argued either for or against by using facts or other sceintific theories. It is also totally distinct
from metaphysical theories (immaterial beings, etc) whose gratuitousness renders any
discussion vain. If we accept as our working theory that all times exist at the same time, that
they are equally real, have their separate place in space and that the only thing that
differentiates them is their frequency, we then have a theory complex enough to provide us
with a fairly precise picture of a fundamentally new form of universe.

We know that the whole universe is made up of particles. Let us, for example, consider one at
random - the electron.The electron takes up such a small amount of space that one can
consider its volume as nil, but this does not prevent it from having a (both gravitational and
electromagnetic) influence on an infinite scale. However, even if this image is unsettling, at
least the electron only occupies one sole place in time. If we then apply our hypothesis on the
simultaneity of times, the image gets much more complicated. The electron is no longer a
unique object existing only in the present. It is the sum of all of its chronological entitities. It
is no longer a dot, but a continuous series of dots tracing a sinuous line illustrating its

From the viewpoint of current physics (with only one present), we could compare the electron
to a single wave on a lake, but with our hypothesis (with multiple present times) we would
have to imagine a vast sequence of waves. This is exactly what happens when a stone is
thrown into the water. Not a single, but rather a whole sequence of waves are created, one
after the other, never catching up with each other. Then, as water is not a perfect fluid, the
wave movement progressively weakens and the waves die down until they disappear. We can
continue this comparison by adding that the diminishing force means that each wave is
different from both the one before and after it. This difference could mean that each wave is
unaware of the existence of any of the others, thinking that it is alone on the water. In reality it
would, in fact, be part of a whole where each element lives the same experience but at
staggered intervals. For example, if one of the waves comes across a cork float (corks are not
moved by waves), it will only have done so after the preceding wave, but before the one that
follows. Thus, if a wave could receive a message from a preceding wave signalling the
presence of the cork float, it would be able to boast that it had the gift of precognition!

An electron could therefore be part of a continuous flow of "signals" whose frequencies are
progressively staggered. Only electrons of the same frequency would be able to interfere with
one another and recognise that they share the same present. The same would apply for all
other particles, for matter in general and all of the wider universe containing galaxies, the
Earth and ourselves.

This new way of considering things can trouble us. We would therefore be tempted to stick to
the current concept of matter, with its single, unique present. Unfortunately, nothing is ever
that simple or comfortable. The unique present is saddled with its own contradictions.

Let us presume that you throw a stone. The law of inertia means that it will want to continue
its path forever in a straight line with constant speed. On the other hand, the law of gravity
means that the stone will be drawn to meet the ground as soon as possible, following a
vertical path from where it was thrown. Stones, contrary to humans, are rather friendly, and
your stone will therefore choose a happy compromise and form a gracious curve as the
combined result of both movements. All of this is totally logical in relation to the total
duration of the trajectory. But if one mentally isolates the stone at a point on its path, things
become a lot less clear-cut. The precise point where the stone is marks its present. If this
present is the only time that exists, its past obviously no-longer exists. We can then ask how
the stone "knows" that it was thrown and how it deduces the speed and direction that it should
take in the future. The Earth that we live on is a giant stone thrown into space. However, no
experiment has ever managed to establish the material difference that would exist between the
"front" and "rear" parts of our planet. Matter does not seem to have any memory of its past
where movement is concerned. If this was the case we would have to picture that the present
is not the very fine slice in time that we believe it to be. It would, in fact, be rather thicker. We
would have part of the trajectory which would enable us to extrapolate the whole curve. Even
then the problem would remain complex and whilst we are at it, we might as well concede
that the stone knows it was thrown because someone in the past is still in the process of
throwing it.

In relativistic physics, we explain the stone's inertia by a distortion of the space time within
which the stone "falls". Without going into detail, let us clarify that this distortion happens at
a finite speed (the speed of light). We can therefore apply the same reasoning to this as to the
stone itself. How can the distortion know where it is going if its past is erased and it does not
know where it is coming from?

Up until now we have only mentioned particles, stones or the Earth. These examples of non-
living beings have the advantage that we can disuss them calmly. We do not feel directly
concerned. But we cannot delay the inevitable forever. The time has now come to talk about
human beings.

If all times exist simultaneously, man is not the thin slice of the present that we think we are,
but the sum of our past, present and future realities. We are not the carriage, but the whole
train. A vast train where brand new carriages are constantly being added to compensate for
the dilapidated or damaged ones that are scrapped.

Somewhere on a past Earth, in a precise point in space, we are constantly being born. Further
along, in another part of space, we die at the same rate. Between the two there is the story of
our lives, eternally repeating itself.

At first glance this is not a very happy picture even if it does provide us with the possibility of
near-eternal life. However, things are possibly more subtle than they seem. Let us take the
example of a river. It is made up of water which is constantly being renewed at the source.
But the river remains the same. Yet the riverbed changes unnoticeably. The water erodes the
banks here and deposits sediment there. Little by little the picture changes. After a long period
of time the river is no longer recognisable - its course has completely changed. We can

therefore say that to some extent the river has two lives. A longitudinal one that is visible, and
a lateral one that is hidden.

Similarly, we could possibly have two lives. One that we know well because we are living it
now and because it only takes into account one present going from our birth to our death, the
other that we are not aware of but which encapsulates all times where lateral changes are
possible, not through chance but due to our own will. To be honest I must say that this more
comforting theory is quite difficult to defend (as we shall see later), but you can bear it in
mind temporarily if you find the idea of constant renewal disturbing.

The above illustrates that when we talk about human beings we easily stray from scientific
rigour into philosophical thought, which can more easily be adapted to fit our desires. This is
not necessarily a mistake, for philosophy is the only place that our imagination can go to
when we arrive at the limits of science. In either case we should not fool ourselves - we
cannot accept both simultaneous times and continue to reason in the same old way. The
outrageous nature of this hypothesis forces us to radically change our way of thinking. Our
reasoning can no longer be that we are part of a whole, but rather the whole itself. It is very
difficult to acquire this new way of conceptualizing reality.

Let us imagine that one of our egos from the near future takes a step to the right - of course
we will not know this. When the time comes, we shall in turn take a step to the right. (We
might dislike and revolt against such an idea.) As we do not know whether the future ego
decided to go to the right or left in order to circumvent an obstacle, we cannot consciously
decide to do the opposite. However, we could let fate decide which direction we should take,
by tossing a coin, for example. We will therefore have a 50 per cent chance of acting
differently to our predecessor. If we had to make decisions one after the other, our chances of
acting differently would increase accordingly. In this way we could escape from our fate.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, because if we revolt
against our future ego we act as if it were a stranger giving us orders. We forget that it is an
integral part of ourselves, and we cannot fight against ourself. It would be as absurd as
accusing our left leg of following our right leg when we walk. The second flaw is that the ego
that precedes us used exactly the same reasoning before we did and tossed the same coin that
landed on the same side. In fact, what terrifies us is that we cannot ecape from our little slice
of the present and that we are unable to reason on the scale of our whole existence. Could this
faculty constitute the next stage in our evolutuionary process? Or do we possess it already, but
are unable to use it.Or could this faculty possibly be the culmination of everything - a sort of
super ego which would be our true reality, and which considers that there is no point that the
various parts of the whole consider themselves to be the whole itself. Or maybe it is only
when we are on the point of dying that a part of us joins the other parts in a spectacular dive
into our super ego. Could this be the journey into a tunnel that people who have had near
death experiences (NDE) talk about?

As we have seen, the simultaneity of times is a wonderful source of inspiration for our
imagination. Whether our theory is true or false, let us enjoy ourselves and follow our dreams.
Some astonishing surprises are still lying in store. We will have plenty of time to sort out the
wheat from the chaff later. That is, if there is any wheat to be found...

The possibility that all times could co-exist will enable us to find solutions to problems which
have none to date, both in acknowledged phenomena or the world of the paranormal. One
should not, however, take all of these solutions as gospel. From one hypothesis you can
explore many avenues. Maybe this is where the richness of a hypothesis lies, rather than in the
suggestion of one or the other solution which can later be proved wrong. We should add,
however, that no hypothesis can claim to be a universal panacea. We shall perhaps lift a
corner of the veil, but the main mystery will still remain hidden.

If we accept the co-existence of times, a fundamental question comes to mind : was there ever
a first time? In other words, is there a future somewhere which itself has no future? Did God
throw a pebble in the lake and has the water been rippling ever since? Amongst the ripples
there would, of course, be one that would be the first. Only this one could warn the others if
there is a cork float on the water whereas nothing could warn this ripple.

At present we cannot answer this question, but in Chapter 8 we shall discuss in more detail
the notion of a future without a future. Before then we shall have to get used to this strange
concept and see how it can be used.


If we take the simultaneity of times as a base for a line of reasoning, let us see how this can
inspire us to find new solutions to some intruiging puzzles.

To make those who do not believe in the paranormal happy we shall now start to consider
some down-to-earth subjects such as memory, life, death and evolution.


The brain is a machine of amazing complexity. A whole host of researchers spend their lives
trying to understand how it works. The ultimate aim of these people is, of course, to explain
the thought process. Some claim that this is a vain hope for the mind is independent of matter
(religious and spiritualist theories), or to be more rational, that the subject studied should
always be superior to the subject under scrutiny. A human brain could not understand the
workings of the human brain because they are both on the same level. Luckily these various
objections have never hampered researchers' determination. However, we should admit that
we are nowhere when it comes to understanding the human mind. In order to simplify the
problem someone therefore decided to start by studying memory as this is the fulcrum for the
thought process. We could thus at least hope to understand how pieces of information
circulate and are stocked. After all, we already use recording devices and computer memories
which function by using different systems.

Unfortunately, no parallel has been brought to the fore. Whatever processes our brain uses to
stock information, we would have to admit that these are fundamentally different from any
electronic device. Worse still, we cannot even localise where memory lies. Experiments also
make you start to wonder.

Planarian worms are freshwater creatures with remarkable powers of regeneration. Like
lizards, their head can grow a new tail. But what is more astounding is that contrary to the
lizard, the worm can grow a new head! This amazing feature gave researchers the idea to try
out a daring experiment. They subjected the worms simultaneously to electric shocks and
flashes of light. After a certain amount of time the worms were conditioned to the point that
they contracted as if they received a shock when in fact only the light flashed. After this the
worms were cut in two and then the researchers waited for the new parts to grow. Once this
happened, the worms that had grown a new bottom half were isolated. When subjected to a
flash of light, they contracted as expected, for their memory could not have been affected by
the loss of the lower half. However, believe it or not the worms that had grown a new head
also contracted when they were in turn subjected to a flash of light!

Thus, a tail could generate a new head with a memory! The question they asked next was - is
the whole body involved in memory ? When dealing with brain traumas, scientists had
already observed that the damaged or missing parts of the brain could be linked by others
which initially were not conceived to perform such functions and they seemed to inherit
knowledge from some unknown source.

Another problem unique to memory is the complexity and sheer number of pieces of
information involved in the process.

In electronics, a machine's performance is expressed in bits per second. The bit is a unit of
information corresponding to the simplest piece of information imaginable. It is a case of all
or nothing. Either an impulse passes, or it does not. It is either yes or no, 0 or 1, etc.
Depending on the complexity of the device used, we can talk in thousands, millions or
billions of bits. The cells of our brain, known as neurones, also function with an all or nothing
system. Here the information circulates due to an inversion of the electric potential of the
neurone's membrane. It is either positively or negatively charged, there is no other alternative.

Therefore, in theory we should be able to calculate in bits the volume of basic pieces of
information that our brain receives on average per second, as well as its ability to stock these.
Unfortunately we can calculate neither.

It is easy to know how many bits are needed to receive a television programme for we have
all of the pieces of information relating to the problem: number of lines; number of dots per
line; number of base colours; analysis of the light contrast; sound contrast, etc. On the other
hand, a similar calculation to establish the number of bits received by our brain encounters too
many unknown factors. We could possibly calculate the approximate number of bits that our
eyes are capable of producing, as we know that the resulting nervous impulse is carried by
nearly 500.000 optical nerve fibres. We could proceed in the same way for hearing, touch,
taste and smell. But what good would this be if apart from these known senses we still cannot
calculate the other pieces of information coming from unknown sources. For example, how
can we allocate bits to an emotion?

Imagine that you are at a reception and try to imagine the number of pieces of information
that your brain picks up per second. You talk with Mr. X, a chatterbox whose wife is wearing
a strangely patterned dress and whose perfume reminds you of Mrs. Y who you met in a
Greek restaurant where you had an argument with a bald waiter. Whilst cleverly replying to

an embarassing quesstion from the talkative Mr. X, over his shoulder you see Mr. Z who is
fidgeting by the bar, this reminds you that you are very thirsty and that it is unbearably hot in
this room which is definitely too small for so many people. No wonder the air seems charged
with electricity and you feel ill at ease. Such pieces of information cannot be quantified. If we
tried to count all of the physical and mental images in detail, with their sounds and sensations,
this brief adventure when expressed in bits would attain astronomical proportions.

On the other hand, if we cannot evaluate the avalanche of data that enters the mind, we are
then unable to have even an approximate idea of the total number of basic pieces of
information that our brain could contain. It is not enough to know that our skull contains so
many billions of neurones, or how many synaptic links exist between the neurones. The
essential thing is to know what system is used for combining them in order to ensure
maximum storage capacity . We have no idea what this is, even though theories on the subject
abound. No one in the world can confirm with certititude that our brain is able to store all of
the information that it receives. We go from the principle that it is obviously able to do so
because we have never diagnosed a case of a "saturated" brain. It is from this observation
alone that we declare that our brain's storage capacity is amply sufficient for memorizing a
whole life. Apart from this, the supposition is unwarranted and is not based on any
mathematical theory.

In order to relieve our memory we could imagine that our brain does not stock all that it
receives and that in fact it forgets the greatest part. This theory would have the merit of
explaining the failures and shortcomings of our memory. Unfortunately for this explanation, it
seems as if our brain keeps everything in store, even if it cannot always easily extract the
required piece of information. The use of psychotherapy, hypnosis or a psychological shock,
has enabled people to rememorize in minute detail episodes from their life that they thought
were gone forever. How can we explain the prodigious memory of gifted people who can
recite the whole of, for example, Victor Hugo's books down to the nearest comma? Yet such
people exist. They must be taken into consideration when preparing a study on memory.

Let us now see how our theory on the simultaneity of times could modify our way of
approaching this problem.

Nature tends to do things for a reason. If all times exist at once, then all of our experiences in
life are spread throughout our past. Everything is noted, slice by slice, in our successive
brains. Why should each of our brains burden themselves with a system of memory when it
would be easier to consult the slices that interest us and that already exist. Our brain would
then be a machine that consults rather than stores the past. All of which is very different. We
do not have to worry if we can commit to memory all of our life, because in fact we memorize
nothing. We no longer need to ask ourselves how neurones stock up and restore bits because,
in reality, they stock nothing. It is therefore useless to ask where the centre of our memory is
in our brain because that centre is spread throughout the past. There is also no point in asking
how the planarian worm finds a new head, with memory included, for all the tail needs to do
is go back into its past in order to find the composition of such a head.

This way of approaching the problem explains many things, such as free- association. How
can we effectively imagine a system of recording information that would differ from one
person to the next? Why does the word "tree" mean paper to one person and the hangman to
another? How can the data be stocked in such a way that very different ideas can be linked
together? If we were to think about the matter in detail we would realize that it is impossible

to imagine such a way of classifying data. All of the information cannot be linked together
and at the same time obey a code of logic.

On the other hand, things become a lot easier if all times exist simultaneously - for all systems
of classification then become possible.

All it takes is a look back in time - linked to the word tree are all of the "trees" from our past
in the contexts where we encountered them. If our closest memory is an article that we read
on paper making, we will then make the free association between trees and paper. It is the first
image that will come to mind. If we go further back, we will come across other associations
stemming from the various experiences during our existence : tree-leaves, tree-fire, tree-
hangman, tree-family tree, etc. We could even, if we needed to, make a presentation and
speak about trees, just by making a selection or compiling all of these ideas that come to us
spontaneously. This study will, without any effort, add some slices to our chronological
memory and we can consult it later rather than start performing the synthesis each time.

If we continue to use the image of the brain as a recording machine, we could, of course,
imagine that all of the events in our life are taped just like a video - this would lead to the
same explanation as that provided by the co-existence of times. Yet if we already had the
equivalent of such a tape, surely we would have already discovered it. As we know enough
about the propogation of nervous impulses, such a considerable and regular movement could
not have gone undetected. In fact, the tree-like shape of neurones does not favour this
recording theory.

Another difficult problem when considering the brain's memory is how to deal with amnesia,
i.e. how can we explain that a man can forget all that happened between two dates? We
already cannot conceive a classification which would explain word association, how can we
then imagine that each piece of information could be recorded with its precise date? It is
possibly easier to suppose that this hole in time corresponds to a non-consultation of the slices
relating to this period, whatever the reason for this may be (psychological, or other).

However, all of the above does not clearly explain how our memory works, but at least we
can hope and believe that the problem has now become a little less obscure than before.
Maybe the dense fog has been replaced by normal fog. We shall once again use a comparison
to help define the new data involved in this problem.

Let us suppose that we are linked to cable television, that we can receive a vast amount of
channels and that these channels are all showing the same film, but at slightly different times.
The first channel started to show the film at 8pm, the second channel at 8.01, the third at 8.02
and so on. If we possess a number of buttons equivalent to the number of channels we can
select as we please the part of the film that most interests us. We could also, if we wanted to,
see the same passage ten times over, on condition that each time we chose a transmitter with a
greater delay, for the film continues to run on each channel. If we take our television set to
pieces, we will find no trace of the film inside. The film is not in the set, but in the different
television stations that we can access via the buttons we push and which are tuned to a
particular wavelength.

By comparison, we could say that our present brain is a receiver. Our past brains are the
transmitting stations. As, in fact, all times are equal, each of the brains acts both as a

transmitter and receiver. Each one broadcasts its own slice of reality and each one is able to
receive the other's slice.

At this stage of our line of reasoning we can ask ourselves how come we have never captured
these signals, if such an emission exists. The reply is obvious. We have never captured the
signals because we never thought that they could exist and, above all, because we know
nothing of the nature of such signals. The only thing that we can be certain of is that they are
not part of the electromagnetic waves (such as radio waves, etc) - if this were the case we
would already have come across them. This should not, however, make us doubt their
existence. If reality is made up of a succession of slices of reality, it would be surprising if an
action made on one of them would go unnoticed. We have seen that the simultaneity of times
forces us to consider an electron no longer as a small material dot, but as a continual line of
dots. Moving one of these dots will necessarily affect the others.

If we string a cable between two trees and hit it with a stick, a line of mechanical waves will
go from the place hit all along the cable wire. Each part of the cable will thus be aware of the
event that has taken place. If we hit the cable in several places, each part will be aware of the
chain of events. If a chain of events represents a coherent message, then it should be possible
to capture a coherent message. Maybe the solution to our problem is just mechanical ?

In our brain, each neurone is in direct contact with those from other times. Together they
constitute the equivalent of the cable mentioned above. The same parts of the brain are
concerned by the same messages at all times, because they are serviced by the same neurones.
One of my past egos looks at a picture. This activates a certain number of neurones who in
turn "let the other neurones know". These are the same ones that would be activated if it were
my present ego that had seen the picture. I therefore have at the origin a picture that triggers
off a message, and at the end a message that triggers off the image of the picture. Things
could not be easier!

The above can only work if the neurones do not disappear between the two periods to be
replaced by others. It so happens that, contrary to the other cells in our body, neurones are
unable to divide.We therefore possess the same ones from birth to death. Could we then say
that breaks in the line (brain injuries) explain in detail the deficiencies that we have already

Whatever the case may be it can clearly be seen, even if only in theory, that the simultaneity
of times is a hypothesis that lends itself particularly well to explaining memory. Go and buy a
scientific book on the subject and you will quickly understand that the researchers who try to
find a solution to this problem using only a single present time have to work in a real

As an example, let us see how our visual cortex identifies an object. Experiments have shown
that the image of an object is fragmented into various pieces of information (external form,
colour, texture, movements etc), each being treated separately by a determined part of the
cortex. Recall therefore requires calling simultaneously to mind all of the aspects of the object
in order to reconsitute the whole. The image of the object also has to be perfectly situated in
time. Thus, for example, if the object is a chair, we have to distinguish between a chair seen
yesterday and one seen today. We could, in fact, have repainted it meantimes and covered its
imitation leather seat with multicoloured material. The various pieces of information to
assemble are therefore different from one day to the next, even for the same object. Above all,

many memories slot in between the two dates thus offering a whole range of intermediate
stages (half-painted chair, painted but without the material seat, etc), which are inextricably
linked to thousands of other details (buying the paint, paintbrushes, material, paint blots on
the floor, expletives uttered during the work, cleaning up afterwards, etc).

Just imagine the superhuman task that neurones face when having to explain all of these
elements with only electrochemical reactions taking place in a single present. This implies
recording each stage in minute detail, however insignificant it may be. It is practically

On the contrary, if we accept the simultaneity of times and the fact that our memory can be
spread out along the various realities, the problem simplifies itself considerably. If, whilst
looking at the chair today, I want to remember how it looked yersterday, I do not have to
torture my mind in order to know where, and how deeply, I buried the desired piece of
information within the cortical mess in my skull. All I need to do is tune to the channel that
represents "yesterday" and contemplate the image that I see in all its complexity.

How can our brain benefit from fragmenting the visual aspect of objects? It probably makes is
easier to perform searches. For example, if someone asks me if I remember a red ball that I
had when I was a child, I will filter all of the memories that come from the past of all that is
red, round, or rolls or bounces, all that is linked to my childhood far back in the past, etc.
Each part of the cortex undertakes its own scan looking for some conformity with the detail
that it is responsible for.The first one to find something alerts the others! Or, on the other
hand, all of the scans exploring the frequencies are made at once and it is only when the
various specialised regions react together that we know that we are in the right part of the
past, where the red ball is recorded.

From amongst diverse theories used to explain the same phenomena, there is one that calls
upon less assumptions than the others - this is called the "simplicity theory". Researchers
generally give preference to the most simple theory for they find it most attractive (the term
"beauty" is often used in such a case). This comes from the fact that the great laws of Nature
are almost always illustrated by very simple and plain formulae. Such has almost become
dogma, to the extent that a very complex theory is perceived as being against the laws of

When dealing with memory, the simultaneity of times is no doubt the hypothesis which best
illustrates the principle of simplicity. But does this mean that we can take it as being true?


He has his mother's eyes, but his father's nose! A good part of the mechanism for heredity is
well known. Once an ovum and a sperm have fused the resulting genetical heritage consists of
a random distribution of the parentsí characteristics via the chromsomes which contain their
genes - the very base of heredity. We know the story.

What is less clear, however, is how shapes are transmitted. We know that there is a factory
that makes building materials, but we do not know which architect designed it. If the child has
his mother's blue eyes it is because the gene-factory that he has inherited is coded in such a
way as to only make the blue chemical component. We can suppose that such a coding system
is not too complicated. Yet the fact that the child has his father's nose is already more
difficult. Codifying a shape is no easy task.

If I call a cabinet maker to order an oak chair, he will say no problem, because he has a stock
of oak. He will then ask me the sort of chair that I want. I will say that I would like a chair
where the armrests join the back in an elegant ascending curve, the back should flare out, but
not too much, and the rear feet should be... There is no doubt that he will interrupt my
enthusiatic description of the chair of my dreams at this point and say "You don't happen to
have a drawing of this, by any chance?".

For nothing is more difficult to describe than a complex form, either in words or even in
mathematical terms. The nose is a perfect example of this sort of problem. How can we codify
a volume made up of various bumps when none of them even remotely ressembles a known
mathematical curve? The genes responsible for shape have, apparently, been discovered. But
this does not explain how they work. How do they pass on the image that in turn dictates the
piling together of molecules?

When we accept the simultaneity of time, maybe we also have the beginnings of an answer to
this quesiton.

After all, this nose really exists in the past - in the flesh, we could say. It is therefore possible
that the finished nose could be in contact with the one that is being constructed. Or, even more
simply, if we go back in time, it is possible that the father's nose, when it was also in
gestation, could be in contact with the son's nose at the equivalent stage of development. The
two noses would therefore, to some extent, develop at the same time.

All of the above can seem mad and excessive. However, we should not forget that we are
reasoning from a most unusual hypothesis. We should therefore be ready to accept unusual
developments. We consider that nature is logical and reasonable because it is there, it exists.
But if we take the trouble to observe it more attentively, we quickly see that everything in it is
mysterious. Things are not that simple or reasonable and the more we deepen our knowledge,
the more we will have the feeling that we live in an amazing world, even if it is governed by
certain laws.

If we tap a crystal glass and make it ring, another crystal glass with the same frequency (or
sound) will in turn start to vibrate due simply to the resonance created. The first glass passes
the vibration onto the air which in turn passes it onto the second glass. If such communication
can exist between two glasses, why should it be so mad to conceive that it could happen
between two noses? Father and son are linked by all chronological realities. The sonís matter
comes from sperm whose matter comes from the father. At most we could say that the link is
very slight, but this link would suffice. The instructions have ample time to pass from one
generation to another. After all, it takes nine months to make a baby, and nearly twenty years
more for it to become a fully-grown adult!

If he does not have his father's or mother's nose, the child could inherit the nose from his
father's mother or mother's father. Jumping a generation is not rare. For us this implies more

distant communication in time. It does not handicap our reasoning, for we cannot see why it
would be more difficult to tune into one wavelength rather than another if, as we suppose,
different times have different frequencies. Nothing prevents us from imagining links that go
even further back in time...

How far back can we go?

The stable particles which lie at the base of the matter from which we are made are practically
immortal. However, as we have seen, what is true of our present should also be true for all
other times. The simultaneity of all times must therefore be taken literally. To accept the
existence of the past means to accept that all past times exist, however distant they may be.
This applies right back to the origins of the universe, if there is such a thing. Somewhere out
in space there must be an Earth where man does not yet exist. Further still another Earth is
inhabited by giant reptiles. Even further back there is another Earth where life is just starting
to appear...

All of these realities transmit constantly and are capable of influencing us. Is this why our
fetal life intrigues embryologists, for they see it as a summary of all of manís evolution?
Today this recapitulation theory has lost much of its credibility, mainly because it has been
used to racist ends (such as to denote inferior races who have stopped at an incomplete stage
of development). The fact remains that the fetus is subjected to a succession of
transformations which are difficult to explain if we totally reject the idea of "recapitulation".
For example, for no apparent reason our heart has had two, three and then four ventricles just
like fish, reptiles and then mammals which suceeded each other over successive geological
eras. Yet this increase in the numer of ventricles does not consist of additions destined merely
to improve the organ itself. At each stage the organ was totally reshaped. It is almost as if
contradictory orders were given. This phenomenon is currently explained via genes which
would have been inhibited and then reactivated according to a complex process which is far
from being elucidated. According to our hypothesis on time, our body would try to obey all of
the messages coming from the past in the same order in which they occurred, by progressively
scanning the various frequencies received.

However there exists an even more mysterious sort of heredity - the one that governs

Instinct makes the spider spin or repair its web, and the bird build a nest or fly without having
being taught how to do so. It leads most animals to perform the most unusual mating dances,
and makes us stand erect when it is so much easier for babies to move on all fours.

It also governs all of our emotional reactions in life : laughter, tears, anger, the self-
preservation instinct, and so on.

Can we imagine that this non-material heritage could be made up of chemical coding? How
do genes go about coding such complex activities? Can we even conceive that an answer to
such questions exists? The case here is not to convey simple orders in a binary code over a
very short period of time. It is an intensely complex film which needs to be projected, a film
that brings into play all of the bodily functions over a very long period of time.

Here again, only the simultaneity of times can provide a coherent reply. To act by instinct
would mean tapping into a similar situation currently being lived in the past by a predecessor
and then copying in chronological order the consequences thereof.


We would therefore already possess a receiver tuned into the most distant past time at our
conception and the first division of cells. At that moment, a sort of pendulum would be
forcefully set in motion. The movement would gradually slow down, and we would venture
less far back in time. We have already passed the fish and reptile stage to arrive at that of
mammals. The movement slows even more and we become primates, then men. We fly over
mankind's history to arrive at eras that are closer to home. The image gets clearer, arriving at
our grand-parents, parents and finally ourselves. Then the pendulum prevents us from going
further than our own existence. We are already born and have reached adulthood where the
rapid decline starts. Small repair jobs are less and less effective. Our cells lose their powers of
regeneration, they forget how to function properly. We age more and more. We therefore try
to slow the process down, for example by injecting ourselves with young cells (they can still
speak to us from a sufficiently distant past). But the effect is only temporary. The pendulum
hardly moves now and finally stops altogether. This is death.

In fact, we most probably die due to a lack of memory. In contrast, life would therefore be the
gift of all living beings with a memory, or to be more precise, of those that can efficiently
consult this memory. The pendulum is just an image. One should imagine a receiver whose
ability to capture a whole range of frequencies diminishes with time. It is possible that it does
not receive messages continuously, but periodically sweeps the waves just like a pendulum.
The waves shown on an electroencephalogram could possibly be an illustration of this
periodicity. It is also possible that there is not just one pendulum, but many, each more or less
specialised in capturing a particular range of wavelengths. All of the pendulums would be
outside our control, apart from those relating to our conscious memory. As soon as we stray
onto new ground, anything is possible.

We shall not leave this subject without once more reminding ourselves, and we shall do so
often, that when we talk about life and death, we reason in slices. For the whole being made
up of all of the chronological realities (all of the slices), the notion of life and death no longer
has any meaning.


Let us return now to paranormal phenomena and see how our notion of the simultaneity of
times can help us understand them better.

As we have already mentioned; we start from the hypothesis that these are real phenomena.
The following lines of text are therefore not here to convince you of their existence but rather
to see if their reality could be illustrated via our hypothesis. If one day the future were to show

us that the paranormal is but a mistake and an illusion, we would be left with answers to
questions that do not exist! This possibility would, however, not call into question the value
of the answers themselves. This situation is a common one for theoreticians. Just as physicists
imagined a totally hypothetical particle called the graviton as the mediator for gravitional
interaction. They were even able to calculate the value of its spin (its own intrinsic motion)
and obtained a value twice the intrinsic spin of the photon. If the graviton hypothesis were
abandoned one day, it would not invalidate the calculated value of its spin, and would not
affect the calculation of spins in general. In the same way, the disappearance of the
paranormal would not mean the end of our hypothesis, even if it stemmed from it.

By the way, if paranoramal phenomena make you come out in spots, have no fear, just skip
this chapter (and the next one too, just to be sure!).


This faculty means knowing facts that are too far away from us in the past to form part of our
memory. There are many people who remember in detail the first years of their lives. What is
less commonplace is to find those that remember their own birth, or even their fetal life. Yet
such cases do exist. On the other hand, what is beyond comprehension is how someone can
know of facts prior to their conception. However amazing it may appear, such cases seem to
occur more often than the former.

It is this extraordinary faculty which has no-doubt given rise to hypotheses such as spiritism
or reincarnation. The previous lives are lived with such reality and a wealth of details that the
person has the intimate feeling that he is dealing with real facts and not dreamlike fantasies
released by his subconscious. From this it is only a short step to imagining that as well as our
bodily envelope there exists an immaterial entity, capable of travelling through time. The step
is all the more easy to take because nearly all religions teach that apart from the body, we also
have a soul. Souls, spirits, ghosts, astral bodies, karma, doubles and other terms in the same
vein are thus meant to explain our relationship with the past. The only fly in the ointment is
that nobody seems to worry about what these untangible messangers can be made of. For they
have to be distinguishable from nothingness. We are just given the word "immaterial" as if
this is in itself an explanation. This is not very susbtantial, is it?

The simultaneity of times is also but a hypothesis. Yet it requires the faith of the believer.
What you are offered is debatable (in all of the senses of the word). It is suggested that all
matter reaches beyond the present, into the past (and future) and that because of this signals
can circulate, thus taking pieces of information from one time zone to another. We can decide
to disagree with this idea, but cannot deny that its nature is strictly materialistic. There is no
side-stepping as in the case of immaterial entities. We are talking here about matter and
signals that travel around it.

If retrocognition is real, we have to stick to an explanation in the same style as the one given
for memory. But instead of exploring just the near past going back to our childhood, our
receiver could sometimes pick up frequencies that come from more distant pasts. Just as our
pulse is usually 80 or 90 beats per minute, but can in some situations range from 30 to over
200 beats. We could thus trace our family tree far back, with the number of people doubling at
each generation, from two parents, four grandparents, then 8, 16, 32, 64 128, 256, 512, 1024

etc. And by using the collateral branches (brothers, uncles, cousins), we could even obtain a
considerably greater number of contacts. If we let our mind freely wonder through the
frequencies we could be like jokers who have fun by dialing phone numbers at random.
Anything could be possible. We could just as easily come across Aunt Agatha or an Egyptian
mumifier or Einstein. This is exactly what happens in all known cases of regression.


As we came upon the idea of the simultaneity of times whilst reasoning about precognition, it
would be poor show to get excited about the idea that this same theory could shed some light
on precognition.

If, as we suppose, memory is the art of being able to tune into the times that exist in the past,
we cannot see why it would not be possible to also home into future times as these exist
simultaneously. The principle must be strictly the same for past as well as future memories.
Yet we are forced to admit that if the message works well one way, from past to present, the
same cannot be said for the other direction, from future to present. We must therefore suppose
that there are mental barriers which exist to prevent this sort of link. These barriers are not
unknown to our brain, for it uses them constantly for our personal comfort. Our eyes are
bombarded with sights and our ears with sounds. Yet our brain is able to isolate one person
talking from within a crowd. The slightest touch on our skin can annoy us and this should
make wearing clothes unbearable. Yet our brain can disregard this constant agression. On a
more psychological plane, the barriers are just as constant and vigilant. We are at the mercy of
stress or accidents every minute of our lives. This perpetual danger should normally
monopolize our thoughts constantly. Yet we can easily block these troubling thoughts to take
great interest in what are sometimes unbelievably trivial everyday matters. This subconscious
repression seems to be even stronger than our instinct for self-preservation.

Thank heavens that this is so. Our very existence would be unbearable without it. We should
therefore not be surprised to find that the door to the future is locked for us. As long as we
live our "slice" of life and reason in slices, we will be unable to accept that our future is
unavoidable. On the other hand, if we could live our life globally, we could accept the future
serenely. Going to the hairdresser is a traumatic experience for our hair. For our whole being
(hair included), it can be a very pleasant experience.

This does not stop messages coming in from the future. For some unknown reason one or the
other detail can be captured from a whirpool of signals. As no machine is perfect, maybe our
mental barrier is not watertight. Or maybe a particular mental state could transcend our
memory receiver and make it work on unusual frequencies. Or maybe we have the right
receiver but do not know how to use it properly. Finally, maybe our whole ego decides for its
own reasons to deliberately let certain pieces of information filter through. There are
numerous alternatives, you can think of some more.

We should note in passing that the most common case of precognition is one that happens in a
very short space of time. You suddenly feel that someone you have not heard from in a while
is going to call you. This is exactly what happens in the seconds that follow your "feeling".

This should be compared with our memory of the immediate past. If a number such as
8.629.371 is read out to you, you will be able to immediately recite it without error. If one or
two other numbers (143.627 and 37.882, for example) were added, you would most probably
have forgotten the first one. We cannot explain why, but we know that immediate memory is

The same seems to be true for immediate future memory. This would therefore prove that the
two memories function in the same way, just as we thought they did.


At first sight we would be tempted to make a fundamental disinction between retrocognitive
or precognitive communication and telepathic communication. In fact, in the first case we can
easily imagine that communication can occur between two of our egos, separated by time.
The message passes lengthways. When dealing with telepathy, the communication always
takes place with another person. The message travels laterally. It links two presents.

Telepathy is a phenomenon that has intrigued humanity since time immemorial, yet it is only
recently, since the end of the last century that we have been able perform experiments on it.
This is due to the the invention of the radio. Hertzien waves result from a certain manipulation
of electric current and as we have already seen, our brain is also home to electric currents. It
seemed as if this was the right track. Telepathic waves were, in fact, just Hertzian waves.

Unfortunately, the researchers never managed to capture them, even using the most sensitive
receivers and trying out various wave ranges. Moreover, there seemed to exist no obstacle to
block a telepathic message, be it a Faraday cage or lead casing. Exit therefore the Hertzian
electromagnetic wave theory.

Electromagnetic waves are not the only thing that can link two people at a distance. A simple
electric wire can also do the trick. All you need to do is connect to each end a piece of
equipment far simpler than a transmitter-receiver, called a telephone. Could the same be true
for telepathy? If so, where is the wire?

If all times exist simultaneously, it is easy to imagine such a wire. All of our realities joined
lengthways in time make us think of a cable made up of countless strands (molecules), which
are in turn made up of even thinner strands (atoms and particles). We can easily imagine the
phenomenal amount of pieces of information that could circulate within such a system. This
would largely satisfy all of the requirements of memory, heredity, retrocognition and
precognition, in other words all that requires a link between different times. But how do we
deal with telepathy which involves the link between two present times? Or, to be more
precise, how can we use the longitudinal cable to make a lateral connection?

If we look at two electric cables side by side, and if we know that current flows from one to
the other, we will naturally conclude that somewhere on their journey there must be a
connection. It is therefore reasonable to think that between two telepathists there must also
exist the equivalent of a connection in their past (or possibly in their future).

Simple physical contact could suffice. We would therefore just need to go back in time to
locate the moment where, for example, we shook hands with the contact person, then go
towards that person's present to ensure a present-past-present link. This physical contact
would explain why telepathy seems to work better when the protagonists are linked by family
or emotional ties. As the chances of physical contact are greater, finding a connection is also
made easier.

Any nurse working in a maternity ward can confirm the extraordinary ties that bind a mother
to her child and which means that she knows when the baby has a problem, even if they are in
separate rooms. Does any physical link between two beings exist that is longer-lasting or
stronger than pregnancy?

You might find this path rather tortuous, but that which is complicated to imagine can
possibly be simple to perform. Logic dictates that a bolt of lightning should be a straight line,
because this is the shortest distance between two points - yet lightning logic is different. It
finds it easier to zig-zag along paths of highest ionisation. Believe me, the lightning is right.

When we reason with an unknown phenomenon we must always bear in mind all of the facts
observed. Yet with telepathy there is an element that seems to hold quite an important role,
and that is psychometrics. This barabaric and ill-suited word refers to using objects to act as a
bridge between two subjects. These objects are referred to as relay-objects or batons as an
analogy to those used in relay races. They can be considered as equivalent to the object that a
police dog is given to sniff before carrying out a search.

In telepathy it is often the case that the mechanism starts at the precise moment when one of
the subjects touches an object belonging to the other person. However, it is obvious that the
journey subject A-object-subject B cannot be made in one unique present. If A touches the
object at the present time, subject B, to whom it belongs, can only have touched it in the past.
Consequently there is a clear link between present-past-present and not, as it would more
simply seem a present to present link.

A passage through the past seems to be a prerequisite for all telepathic links. We should note,
however, that we can use the same reasoning by going via the future rather than the past and
this increases the chances of making contact.

A particularly interesting aspect of telepathy is that is also seems to affect the animal world,
more particularly domestic animals. Everyone knows an amazing story of a dog or cat that
finds its masters after having travelled unbelievable distances.

Expert rationalists obviously have ready-made explanations to resolve such enigmas, and at
first gance they seem to be reasonable ones. Given the fact that the masters generally travel by
car, train or another form of locomotion, the animal's sense of smell could not have made
them follow their tracks. Another more credible reason had to be found.

Rationalists currently favour two hypotheses for such experiences.

The first calls upon astronomy. The animal would orientate itself according to the sun's
position at each particular time of the day. This would already be an amazing feat, considering
the precision that such a technique requires. But how does this work when the sky is cloudy?

There is no explanation. And what about at night? Must we admit that the animal knows the
constellations and can pick out the pole star? This is difficult to take seriously.

The second hypothesis relates to the earth's magnetic field. We suppose that unlike pigeons,
cats and dogs are sensitive to this magentism and could thus use it to find their way and
localize the place where they live. This makes them look clever and, if we do not go into too
much detail it can seem credible. After all, why not?

This way of explaining things is, in fact, deeply dishonest. It leads you to believe that every
lost animal has always been abandoned a long way from home and that they would therefore
always be looking for their home. This covers only half the problem and we dare not consider
the other half, for in these cases magentism does not explain anything!

We cannot, in fact, ignore those cases where the masters have moved house and gone to live
elsewhere. Then the animal does not have to look for his home, but for a place where he has
never lived and no magnetic force (or Pole Star!) can tell him where this is. This way of
slicing up the problem in order to keep only the part of it that can be explained is very
common with some pseudo-scientists who would sell their souls in order to stop the
paranormal interfering in such issues, or rather than admitting their own ignorance.

If we had to choose, although is seems more extraordinary the telepathic hypothesis appears
to be less hairbrained than the notion of so-called doctored common sense. We have a lot of
physical contact with a pet and this creates a very strong link that fits well into the framework
discussed earlier. By going back through the chronology of successive events, the animal
could be capable of piecing together in detail the journey that his masters made which he
would then just have to follow, with no need for any calculations or deep thought.


Telekinesis means moving objects without having any direct or indirect contact with them -
by this we mean "known contact", for there must be contact somewhere if the energy can pass
from subject to object. We thus find ourselves in the same situation as in the case of telepathy.
We will therefore call upon the same solution, and we shall use the same wire, but this time to
carry energy rather than pieces of information. By using an electric wire with two conductors
we can transmit a telephone message by using a modulated weak electric current. Yet we can
use the same wire to transmit a much stronger current that could, for example, activate an
engine. Depending on whether we favour the quality or strength of the message, we have a
whole range of possibilities between the electronic brain and the power station. In telekinetic
terms this means that it should be possible to transport enough force to make an object move.
All we need to have done is touched the object once so that this strength can be propogated in
the direction present-past-present.

In this case, it is probable that absolute control of this force is necessary. Some objects have
very simple behaviour, for example moving along in a straight line, but others, on the
contrary, present signs of complex manipulation, such as a key turning in a lock, or knots
coming undone in a rope, or even more subtly, in some hauntings, the traces of an invisible
hand that has slapped a witness. It is no wonder that in such spectacular cases people have
suggested that evil forces or disembodied spirits exist. The simultaneity of times allows us to

approach the problem more seriously. The subject responsible for the phenomenon has in his
memory real images of keys turning, knots being undone and slaps being dealt. He has
personally lived such scenes and therefore knows all of the details relating to them including
the amount of energy deployed. It is therefore possible that there can exist a sort of active
recall. The past act and the present energy combine in the object to be affected, be it a key,
rope, or cheek.

Once more we must insist on the fact that this is one explanation amongst others that the
plurality of times can suggest. We have some ingredients, but we do not know how to use
them yet. We are at the ABC of a new way of writing. It might take a long time before we can
learn how to read fluently. Also, before we can answer the question, we need to know if we
have asked it properly. This is not always easy. If I suddenly feel that someone who I have not
seen for a long time is going to call me and he does so a minute later, I can ask myself "how
could I see into the future?". Yet maybe this question is not correct. Maybe I should rather ask
myself how the person I would talk to in the future managed to warn me that he was going to
call. In the first case we have an example of premonition, in the second telepathy. In the first
case we have a message from future to present, and in the second there is a message from
present to past to present. The quality of my reply depends on the quality of the question

There are also, of course, all of those questions where we cannot even start to think of an
answer. How can we explain that very complex experiments are a success when more simple
ones fail.

Many laboratory experiments have been made to try and scientifically prove the reality of
telekinesis. One piece of apparatus used is a jar that lets water, or another liquid fall one drop
at a time on a blade that cuts each of the drops into two equal halves. These half-drops are
then captured in two containers placed side by side under the blade. The experiment involves
filling only one of the two receptacles purely by will. This is an easy test to perform to show
if parakinesis exists. It should be quite easy to intervene slightly. Another piece of appratus
often used is a mechanism that can roll a die at random. Each side of the die has exactly the
same chances of coming up top. The experiment involves mentally influencing the die's roll
so that one side comes up rather than another. Here things are even more simple for it is not
possible to isolate the sides of a die whilst it is rolling. If you blow on the drop that falls to
favour one receptacle, you will obtain the result that you want. Now try to roll a six by
blowing on a rolling die and you will find that your efforts are in vain. Yet after analysing the
results from umpteen experiments, it seems as if the test with the die is the one that provides
the most convincing results. This is truly remarkable.

Now that you have the details of the experiment, you can try it out yourself, if you so wish.

One last point. As we are talking about telekinesis, let us talk about a similar phenomenon -
levitation. In everyday life it is easy to lift an object if it is not too heavy. On the other hand,
no one has ever been able to lift themselves, apart from by jumping or using a staircase. It is a
matter of having support. If I lift an object, it loses its weigtht and I am heavier by the same
amount. If I lift myself, I have to find my weight elsewhere. There also must be something to
lean on somewhere. Where? We have a choice, and can select the floor of the present time,
for example. The energy that equals the weight moving from me(present) to me (past) to floor
(past) to floor (present). Or we could also admit that my weight has disappeared from the
present and is distributed between my past egos. All of the past would act as a fulcrum for the

present. What is important when choosing a solution is that it must not go against established
scientific fact. Nothing is lost nor created is as true for a universe with many times as it is for
one with only a single time.


Prodigious memory is not one that is particularly, but rather abnormally good. There is a
world of difference between having a good memory and a prodigious one. One case involves
a good performance, the second deals with what can simply be called perfection. After having
read a book, most common mortals can sum up the contents more or less efficiently. A mental
giant will be able to recite the whole text down to the last sentence, word and comma. If he
does not lose his gift, which sometimes happens, he will be able to recite the text thirty years
later. If we interview these masterminds they will explain that their performance requires no
effort and that all they need to do is read the original text as it unrolls in their brain as clearly
as a photograph.

Prodigious memory therefore seems to be more a case of perfect recall rather than perfect
memorization, which is the ideal definition if we accept the reality of all times. If we cannot
read all of the pieces of information that go through our mind, it is probably because we are
unable to concentrate for long enough on the desired frequency. The image is therefore so
brief that we cannot take in the detail. All that remains is the general impression from when
we read the text, thus our numerous shortcomings. The problem is even greater because the
brain only remembers what it can! Experiments made with American students have shown
beyond doubt that our brain is very lazy when it comes to recall.

A large number of students were presented with a table covered with objects and they were
asked to commit them to memory. After some time, they were asked to draft a complete list of
the objects. At first it was clear that no student could provide a complete list, which was not
surprising considering the number of objects involved. A few days later, they were again
asked to draft the list of objects that they could remember. As expected, the amount of objects
remembered dropped again. However, what was surprising is that when the results were
analysed they noticed that none of the students remembered an object that they had forgotten
in their first list. Our memory is therefore not made up of memories, but of memories of
memories. Our brain does not bother going back to the original experience, but goes to the
closest and most recent recollection thereof. It is therefore likely that someone with
prodigious memory always goes back to the source and that he can maintain this image long
enough to observe all of its details. This ability would go back to earliest childhood and it
does not, unfortunately, seem to be possible to acquire it later in life.

Arithmetical genius' are often gifted with prodigious mnemonic force, even if in this case the
memory is more geared towards numbers. Thus one genius managed to easily memorize all of
the logarithmic tables. Having later realised that it was far easier to perform the calculation
each time, which provided a greater number of decimal places, he tried in vain to forget these
tables. This was impossble - he kept them in his memory for the rest of his life.

The fact that memory and mental arithmetic are linked is no surprise. Our difficulty to
perform mental arithmetic comes from our inability to remember all of the partial results. If

we write calculations down, we make up for our faulty memory by reading the intermediate
results which in time allows us to perform complex calculations.

But memory cannot explain everything to do with arithmetical genius'. The most
extraordinary point is the unbelievable speed and ease with which these people obtain the
answer. Most of these genius' are able, once they have received the details of some staggering
calculation, to disregard it and to hold a conversation whilst performing a minor calculation
such as establishing the day of the week for a given date or converting someone's date of birth
into their actual age in seconds. The person will then stop and tell you that incidentally the
reply to your high-power calculation was such and such. The most amazing thing is that they
will always be right. This provides a triple mystery relating to : the speed, the ability to deal
with several problems at once and the faultless result obtained.

Regarding the speed involved, we can imagine that our brain distributes the work to our past
brains. All or some of the calculations are therefore undertaken by the past brains before the
problem has even been set. Even more simply, we could suppose that there is always
precognition of the result or a reading via telepathy in the question-master's mind. However,
in the latter case the reply would be immediate, and this has never been witnessed. A
minimum amount of time (seconds or minutes) appears to be necessary. At least some of the
work seems to be undertaken in the present, for example, the compilation of the intermediate

The ability to deal with several problems simultaneously is interesting because it leads us to
believe that our brain works at different levels : one level for the conscious mind, another for
the subconscious and, probably, others for other tasks such as controlling our bodily functions
and all that keeps us alive or makes our life easier.

As for the infallibility of the calculations, they could be a direct result of the infalliblity of

We could at first imagine that prodigious memory and mental arithmetic are a positive gift for
those that possess them. These people have an advantage over the rest of mankind and their
talent could perhaps foreshadow tomorrow's man. They could be ahead of evolution!

At present we know that this is not so and that you pay a high price for this sort of skill. It
seems as if these 'priveleged few' are in most cases mentally handicapped people whose
intellectual level is generally way below (or should we say outside?) the average. We also
know that this "gift" is most often found in autistic people and that there is probably some link
between the two.

But what is the cause and what is the effect in such cases?

Could it be possible that some mental disorders have their origins in chronological blockages?
Could such blockages favour memory and mental arithmetic but prevent normal brain
activity? Could they also explain repetitive behaviour (obsessional blockages) as observed in
autists? Or could there be people who could get lost in different times and have trouble
concentrating on the present? In short, are there temporal illnesses?

These are new and strange questions which our hypothesis on the plurality of times raises...


So-called miracle healings are above all unexplainable healings which take place in unusual
circumstances. They can take place outside a religious context. Even the Church does not
impose a religious connotation to such phenomena. This is why the Church only emits an
opinion on such acts very cautiously, according to an opinion given by doctors concerned,
usually the medical commission in Lourdes. These doctors are not necessarily of Catholic
faith, and come from various religious denominations. When the Church exceptionally, and
we stress that this is exceptional, decides that a miracle is genuine, it is usually in cases where
no other explanation can apply. However, one should not imagine that this means that miralce
healings are mundane spontaneous healings where we do not understand the processes
involved. In fact these cases are most spectacular and defy all common sense. The most
amazing are those that involve two-part healing. At first there is an instant physiological
healing, for example eyes suffering from white atrophy causing incurable blindness suddenly
regain their function whilst doctors from the medical commission can see no improvement in
the illness. In other words, the person who has been cured sees with eyes that cannot see. It is
only in the second phase that the real healing takes place in the days or weeks that follow.
Only then can doctors witness that the eyes have become healthy again. Similar cases have
been witnessed with bone damage which impedes movement, or tumours or atrophy.

Healing as such could be explained by the memory that we have of the healthy organ. The ill
organ is put into contact with the healthy organ from the past and should then take up its old
form. Regeneration would take place due to the elimination and production of cells in the
same way that the fetus can model its heart by changing the number of ventricles
(recapitulation theory, see section on heredity) or make one nose ressemble another (ditto).

Invisible but effective healing is even more extraordinary for those that witness it. How can
we see the manifestations of a healing when the healing will, in fact, only happen later? What
cannot be read with useless eyes must be read by other eyes, those of the healed person in the
past or future or those of another person. It is essential to accept this, unless we want to fall
back into the world of those beliefs that we have already dismissed, such as spirits, souls, etc.
Immaterial beings cannot have the gift of sight. An invisible and untangible eye cannot
provide an image. Where there is no matter there cannot be an eye nor sight. As far as
recovering lost mobility, this could at first be explained by a temporary loss of sensations
permitting movements that were impossible before due to pain rather than due to a physical
problem. This numbness would be due to a disconnection from the present time.

We can once more see that all attempts to provide an explanation inevitably come across the
idea on the simultaneity of times. Any attempt at a rationalist solution referring to
psychosomatic influence or spontaneous remission is a subjective simplification of a problem
where people refuse to take into account all of the details.


We have thus explored the main paranormal phenomena. Some manifestations remain which
we should say a few words about even though they are usually just variations of those that we
have already analysed.

Metagnosis manifests itself as the spontaneous knowledge of something that usually requires
lengthy studies. The subject suddenly becomes able to play an instrument, draw or write 'in
the style of a particular author' or to speak a language that they have never learnt. If such
phenomena are real, they are no doubt linked to telepathy or retrocognition. Identification
with a person in the past or someone in the present who has these abilities takes place.

Apparitions, out of body experiences, appearance of ectoplasm and other purely visual
phenomena could just be illusions, but are nonetheless based on real phenomena. A is in
telepathic link with B. The impression of a presence can be so strong that A creates a
dreamlike image of B. A can see B appear or A thinks that he has travelled to see B. It is not
because we are dealing with the paranormal that means that we should forget other more
down to earth solutions which can fulfill our criteria. Dreams and hallucinations are a good
exmaple of this. When faced with an irrational experience, the rational side of our brain can
drum up images or sensations that have no aim other than to provide an explanation, even a
lame one, for such irrationality.

People with stigmata are probably linked to miracle healings because these bring physical
changes with them. This explanation is not totally satisfactory, for in this case the model does
not exist in the past as in healing. The model is, on the contrary, only imaginary. A mystical
person with stigmata not only reproduces the marks that ressemble those of Christ, but can in
some cases provoke swellings which imitate the heads of the nails on the back of their hands
and the bent point of the nail in their palms. In psychiatry different shaped stigmata have been
obtained by making the subject believe that they were being branded with an iron of a
particular shape. It therefore seems as if some orders coming from our simple memory could
superimpose themselves onto our memory of regeneration. Could this not be a possible
explanation for some cases of mimicry witnessed in animals?

How can we explain the almost too perfect ressemblance between some butterflies and the
leaves of some trees, for example? Could the animal have captured a plant message that was
not aimed at it and which superimposed itself onto its own genetic image? The plurality of
times does not just apply to man. We should expand our reasoning to all of the animal world
(and even the inanimate world, for even the smallest particle exists simultaneously in all eras).

Could a bird's feathers have also copied a plant model by accident? The origin of feathers is
an unanswered mystery in the evolution story. They suddenly appear, in all their complexity,
in the archaeopteryx, the ancestor of birds, at the Jurassic period. This animal descended from
a family of small dinosaurs which were scaly. Feathers and scales are made from the same
corneal matter and one indisputably stems from the other. How can a rounded scale suddenly
have modified its shape to become branched-out without having apparently having gone
through any intermediate stages (absence of fossils)? Where did the order come from for such
complex subdivisions? Should we not look for the origins of this in the complex ferns whose
leaves strongly ressemble feathers? Is this so hard to believe if we accept the existence of
stigmata? Is it more reasonable to believe, as in orthodox theory, that nature favoured the
gradual transformation of the scale into a feather as if each stage was a real improvement on
the previous one. What advantage would an animal have if it lost the efficiency of its front
legs and was yet unable to fly because of its sketchy feathers?

Many similar examples can be given of intermediate forms that are necessary (for
'evolutionism') but irreconcilable with the notion of real progress. Also, there are no fossils to
help confirm the assertion that there were intermediate stages (at least not in macro-
evolution). Some researchers then thought that nature could work in 'leaps' (saltation theory).
This idea is also very difficult to defend. In our example, it would not only imply that feathers
would have suddenly appeared (which we can accept), but that at the same time the animalís
front limbs would have been stretched enough to act as a frame for what would become the
wing, that the muscle structure would have been fundamentally modified in order to ensure
the mechanism needed for flapping, that even the respiratory system would have adjusted, and
so on. This unbelievable correlation could only be conceivable as part of a pre-determined
plan! At this point, we fall into creationism. A superior being would intervene at each
important stage of evolution.

It is too early to hope that the simultaneity of times could provide us with a new credible
concept. Yet maybe we could hope for something similar to that which is found in quantum
mechanics. A particleís trajectory is not determined at its starting point, but at its destination!
Before that, all routes are possible. On arrival, only one has been selected. Can we imagine
that nature imagined all of the possible routes possible to go from non-flight to flight? It then
chose one solution, the one that had the most chance of succeeding? This would imply that
nature acts 'intentionally' or that the image to copy already exists in the future!

In recent times, the television has made us used to seeing surprising scenes. An apple
becomes a pear, a toaster becomes a rocket or a man becomes a racing car without there being
any break in the images. The miracle comes from the fact that we can now manipulate images
electronically. The principle in itself is simple. You start with a first image, for example a
man, and a second one, which could be a car. The computer is then told to calculate all of the
intermediate images needed to go from one to the other.

As the sequence is short, we do not have the time to see the intermediate stages, but we easily
imagine that they must be monstrous. Half way between man and car there must be a fantastic
monster whose arms and legs are neither limbs nor wheels. A hybrid being which cannot run
nor drive!

These are but technical performances which relate to immaterial objects. Yet we cannot be but
deeply troubled when we compare this computerised party game to some modifications seen
in the evolution of species. Let us take the example of the caterpillar which changes into a
butterfly. To start with, there is a living animal: the caterpillar, and at the end, the objective to
reach is another fundamentally different animal also perfectly adapted to life: the butterfly.
Between the two lie a whole range of hybrid forms, a nightmarish succession of monstrosities,
unable to survive more than a few moments in the hostile world. This is why the insects had
no other alternative than to isolate themselves completely during the transition period inside a
protective cocoon, the chrysalis.

The analogy with the electronic manipulation of images is, you will agree, so striking that we
can ask if this is in fact more than just an analogy. Let us take the next step and say that what

is true for an insect could also be so for superior animals. Could it be in the egg for reptiles
and birds or the uterus for mammals that the greatest leaps of evolution take place? And all
within the space of one generation! This would explain the missing links that exist in
fossilised forms.

The consequences of this hypothesis open new breathtaking philosophical possibilities. But
within the framework of the simultaneity of times, can we let ourselves reject an idea,
however astounding it may be, just by shrugging our shoulders?

Some phenomena which concern the physics or chemistry of the human body are more
difficult to intepret. This can be said for luminous manifestations, incombustibility or heat
phenomena. Hagiography is rich in such examples.

The luminosity of a body or part thereof is often associated with levitation. The mystic rises
from the ground and his body is bathed in light. In other cases, no levitation takes place, but
only the light phenomenon. If this light does not embrace all of the body, it is usually
restricted to the head. The latter case most probably lies at the origin of the halo represented
in religious icons of many civilizations. This is a physio-chemical phenomenon that is no-
doubt limited to the paranormal which it is most probably too early to try and elucidate. The
same applies for people who show an insensitivity to heat or on the contrary those individuals
who produce an abnormal amount of heat. An undefined chemical process can apparently
produce hypo- or hyperthermia in the body. It may seem improbable that hypothermia can
make us insensitive to fire. Try the following experiment: discreetly push your thumb against
the ice cube in your cocktail for a minute (without being seen), slowly wipe your thumb and
then stub-out a cigarette on it. You will feel no pain and there will be no mark on your thumb
- this will amaze the other guests.

A different chemical reaction, unique to the living and of paranormal origin can possibly
provide the starting point for explaining biologicial transmutations which Kervran revealed
thirty years ago. By using precise quantitative analyses, Louis Kervran proved that simple
bodies (elements from the MedeleÔev classification) could transform themselves into other
simple bodies without using extraordinary energy. This was as crazy and as anti-scientific as
alchemists transforming mercury or other bodies into gold. The only difference here was that
for Kervran these changes only took place in living organisms.

Could the exchange of energy between different times be a key to understanding what
happens? Could there be a phenomenon of resonance which would make one atom modify its
number of protons to conform with the image of another atom from another time? Maybe we
should read Kervran again more carefully.

Let us close this chapter with one last subject which is also hard to define. This is
materialisation, and its opposite, dematerialisation. These terms are possibly incorrect, for
they lead one to suppose that they involve either creation from nothing or total destruction of
matter. It would rather seem as if there is appearance and disappearance of objects, which is
not quite the same thing. Quite a common occurrence with hauntings involves stones being
thrown as if by some invisible hand. In parapsychology this would be considered as a simple

case of telekinesis. Yet some witnesses strongly claim that only one part of the stonesí
trajectory is visible. Everything happens as if they came from a particular point in space. This
does not in itself equal creation. In this case, the nature of the stone would be indifferent to its
surroundings. However, investigations made in such situations have shown that the stones
concerned always came from the immediate surrounding area. This would therefore be more a
case of them being invisible during part of the trajectory. We could therefore suppose,
amongst other hypotheses, that these stones would have temporarily changed their own
frequency, thus escaping our sight which is tuned into the present. We shall have the chance
to consider the importance and consequences of this specific frequency in the next chapter.

To come back to appearances and disappearances, we should note that this phenomenon also
intervenes in some cases of miracle healing (as you can see, all of this is closely linked!). Sick
people who have puffed and swollen skin due to internal fluids, have suddenly recovered their
normal appearance without there being any traces of the aforementioned liquids. Their clothes
were totally dry, as the famous doctor Alexis Carrel, amongst others, witnessed at such a
healing in Lourdes.

Many books are dedicated to the subject of miracle healings. Others deal with prodigious
mental arithmetic, precognition or haunted houses. Others, more numerous, are dedicated to
paranormal phenomena in general. This vast amount of literature is of unequal quality, and if
the subject interests you it is worthwhile reading as much as possible, to make sure that you
come across some of the quality information. You will therefore be better able to judge, from
the many details that you will discover, if the idea of the simultaneity of times is backed up by
these books, or not. It has not been possible to take all of these details into account here,
otherwise the book would have taken on the proportions of an encyclopedia. As a first contact
with our hypothesis is seems better to deliberately limit the number of pieces of information
in order to have a more panoramic view of the subject at hand. This simplification helped us
to quickly bring to the fore the diversity of phenomena concerned by our hypothesis.

We have also been pleasantly surprised to see that an idea born from reasoning on the
paranormal was rich enough to provide a possible explanation on how memory works, and
other associated phenomena which at first sight seem to bear no relation to the paranormal.
The plurality of times does not only interest those that believe in the irrational. We shall soon
see that our wild hypothesis can also be used to illustrate the very serious issue of quantum
physics. Before that, let us make a quick detour into a realm that will make readers intent on
being rational howl : time travel !


Contrary to other chapters, this one does not aim to demonstrate the rational nature of our
hypothesis. It should be considered more as a breather. For a few pages we will let our
imagination run wild. Yet the exercise will not be uninteresting. It will let us get to know our
madcap idea better, to witness the sort of contradictions and delirium that it brings with it. We
shall attempt to see, in an ironic sense, just how far over the top we can go.

One of the particularities of manís genius is that he always finds a practical explanation for
his theoretical discoveries. Exceptions to this rule are very rare, and often sporadic. Some
time is obviously needed to master a theory before it can be put to practical applications. If we

accept that all times co-exist, there is no reason why this hypothesis, if it turns out to be true,
could not have pratical applications. Such applications could take on very different forms, as
suggested by the different paranormal phenomena. We could therefore dream of machines
whose power and efficiency would make up for the sporadic and unpredictable human
performances. You just need to delve into science-fiction novels to find extraordinary gadgets
that could become real. We then start dreaming of levitation cars, chronological telephones or
even machines to heal instantly. However, the wildest idea which first comes to mind has to
be the ability to travel through time.

At first glance, nothing in theory opposes this notion. We have seen that yesterday and
tomorrow are not situated in some strange dimension that the mind cannot conceive, but more
poetically in precise locations in space and time. We have also seen that it is reasonable to
suppose that each time must correspond to a particular frequency which would explain the
invisible and untangible nature of matter from different times. From this double hypothesis
we have concluded that to be able to travel through time, one must first travel in space in
order to join the Earth which corresponds to the desired period and then tune into the
frequency unique to that period. Unfortunately, nothing is that easy for us, mere mortals -
even in our dreams !

Let us suppose that our theory on multuiple times is correct. Let us also suppose that one day
we manage to build a vehicle able to move through space (which we can already do), pinpoint
the place on the Earth that we want to travel to and also tune us into the right frequency. That
will be the day when we will be able to travel through time.

But that day already exists! It has to be so, for we have already stated that all times co-exist.
This is the very aim of our study. Elementary knowledge therefore leads us to accept that if
these vehicles already exist, somewhere in the future, they are already being used and,
consequently, they can already come and visit us!

There are moments in life when we would like to go back in time. I consider it a disaster that
the term UFO should appear in this work, for it is already hard enough to speak of paranormal
phenomena without adding the frenzied problem of flying saucers. But how can we do
otherwise? How can I speak of machines from other times and try to hypocritically leave
aside these mysterious apparitions in the sky? Let us treat the subject briefly in order not to
offend either those who do not believe in UFOs but also the believers who will probably not
appreciate the fact that we will highlight the least popular of their hypotheses. However,
bringing together UFOs and the paranormal might not be as incongruous as it might initially

The two problems have many points in common. They both, in fact, go back far in time, we
find traces of them in the oldest texts. Both remain unexplained since then. They both defy the
laws of science. Both are based on eye-witness accounts. From such general comparisons we
can see that the two enigmas pose themselves in the same way. The only logical attitude we
can have is therefore either to accept or refute them both. We cannot see for what reason we
should accept one and refute the other.

The comparison becomes clearer when we bring together UFOs and levitation. In both cases
there is no reaction to the act that takes place, no air is displaced unlike when a helicopter or

missile flies past. In both cases flight occurs, or can take place in total silence. In both cases
we have been told that objects near to the manifestation suddenly lift off the ground. In both
cases sudden movements or collisions give an impression of weightlessness. And finally, in
both cases there is, or can be, luminous phenomena which appear as secondary
manifestations. Taking into account the number of points they have in common, how can we
not be tempted to bring together and even confuse the two problems and see in UFOs
machines that use the principle of levitation?

But let us not get carried away. The study of UFOs is an area particularly corrupt due the
amount of false accounts that have been recorded. The paranormal also has its fakes, but not
to the same extent. To claim that you can spark off strange phenomena brings with it the risk
that you will be put to the test and therefore unmasked if you cheat. If you want people to take
an interest in you, you will also have to multiply your performances, which also increases this
risk. With UFOs the case is far simpler. Any Tom, Dick or Harry looking for fame can
pretend that he has seen something strange in the sky. How can we know if he is telling the
truth? How can you catch him out? His position is even more comfortable for it is in his
interest not to act again. He therefore runs pratically no risk. No wonder there are so many
unknown people who want to become stars for a day. If the literature on UFOs is riddled with
a multitude of useless and unusable witness accounts, the responsibilty must lie with the
people who investigate such phenomena. They collect their information mainly from people
who are firm believers and they naturally tend to accept everything that they hear. They do
not push the witnesses to the edge as a professional investigator would, using a thousand and
one tricks or threats in order to try and pinpoint the truth. Rationalists have undestood this and
have thrown themselves at this weakness. It did not take them long to confound the liars and
throw discredit on the UFO phenomenon. Yet if it was neccesary to clean out the Augean
stables, one must not take as gospel all that the rationalists say. Their viewpoint is also
subjective, for rationalism is a doctorine (and as such bears the mark of dogmatism).

However, we are not here to undertake the trial of UFOs. When in doubt, we can proceed as
for the paranormal, by using the conditional tense. If UFOs exist, what lines of reasoning can
we apply to them?

The most popular hypothesis is that we are dealing with flying machines, built by an unknown
civilization of extra-terrestrial origin. This is the one that at first sight best adheres to the
typical eye-witness accounts collated. Metal with portholes, lights and occupants are
arguments that favour the theory that it is a machine rather than an unknown physical
phenomenon. As for the extra-terrestrial origin of the machine, it seems as if this idea comes
from the extraordinary performances noted : great speed, sudden changes in direction, sudden
disappearance etc..

The simultaneity of times and its corollary, time travel, also let us widen our horizons further.
The extra-terrestrial hypothesis remains valid, but we should add to it the idea that our visitors
could be our descendants, i.e. honnest terrestrials. We are going to develop both possibilities.
We shall see that in each case we will have the opportunity to think about multiple times, all
of which is good mental exercise. We shall also see how to travel for free and how to visit
distant worlds without having to move too far - this will no-doubt make all science-fiction
lovers happy.


If UFOs come from the future, and if they are piloted by someone, it is reasonable to suppose
that they are piloted by humans. The number of witnesses who attest to this are considerable.
Even if we have not been lied to, we must also take into account a more particular breed of
dwarves with big heads (the most common description), giants, one-eyed monsters, hairy
beings with glowing eyes, robots or androids and other more hideous ones. Dwarfishness or
gigantism are known infirmities and do not prevent their victims from being one hundred
percent human. For the record, the heights noted vary from 51 cm to 2.85 metres (figures
which vary according to sources). Regarding cyclops and other monsters, they are no doubt as
human as you or I. You do not need to have read "Star Wars" to know the sort of magic that
make-up artists and special effects teams can work these days.

We can thus understand that our descendants might have good reasons for masking their
human origins to make us think that they are extra-terrestrials. After all, they know us well.
Their choice no doubt takes into account this very knowledge which they have, but which
currently escapes us. Maybe they do not want to unduly disturb us. However, I cannot see that
it is any more comforting to think that we are being watched by monsters from outer space.

We have seen that if time travel were possible, the first thing that we would need to do is to
travel back, via space, to the Earth which corresponds to the period sought after. But this trip
can be long if the period chosen is far away and if we take into account the speed of the Earth,
which is far from being negligeable. However, a long journey means great speed - this implies
great energy and therefore the taking vast quantities of primary matter on board. Luckily, our
hypothesis is rich in solutions. Here, as an example, are two very economical possible

The first is the most obvious. We have seen how telekinesis can be explained by the idea of
transporting energy from one matter (us) to another (the object) via a contact point in the past.
As the energy source can be situated in a different time, we can easily imagine a power station
in our present which fuels a machine that travels in the past. We thus gain space and weight in
the machine.

The second solution is even more economical. It is similar to that used currently by space
probes which use the gravitational pull of the planets that they travel past in order to increase
their speed. The aim of our journey would be very simple. Without leaving the Earth we could
place ourselves and our machine at the same frequency as an Earth from the near past, at a
thousand kilometres, for example. At the same time, our present Earth disappears - it only
exists for us - and we fall under the influence of the new Earth which has just appeared a
thousand kilometres away.The gravity of this new Earth pulls us and we fall towards it.
Before we crash we renew the operation and change our frequency to that of a third Earth
which is also a thousand kilometres from the second one and thus from attraction to attraction
we progress with increasing speed towards a more distant past. Another advantage of this
system is that we do not need to calculate the trajectory because the different Earths will
automatically guide us. We will make the opposite move to slow down. We therefore take up
the frequency of an Earth that we have already overtaken and repeat the process until our
speed in relation to our destination is nil. It is important not to make a mistake for we then run
the risk of materialising in this Earth rather than close to it. We would be instantly burnt to a
crisp if we did so.

We shall open an aside here to briefly mention some vary strange cases of autocombustion
which will send shivers down your spine (please forgive the pun). From time to time a burnt
body is found without the person having been involved in a fire. Only the person is burnt -
objects close-by are often unharmed. This is even more extraordinary for the temperature
involved must be very high. The bones are burnt to the point of being debris, or even ashes. A
crematorium oven does not come close to achieving such a result. Curiously, one part of the
body, such as a leg or hand, is found almost intact. None of these cases have ever been solved.
Where can such intense heat come from? The different chronological Earths suceed each
other at very small distances. We therefore live at the heart of a certain number of Earths from
the past or the future according to the orientation of our present Earth. All it would take is that
our body, for some unknown reason, tunes into the frequency of one of the nearby Earths for
us to be immediately burnt by its incandescent core. The briefness of the phenomenon
explains why the combustion is limited to objects closeby.

It is enough to make you shiver!

We shall quickly close this aside and come back to our time-travelling machine at the moment
where it tunes into the frequency of the Earth that it is flying over. Someone on the ground
would therefore see the machine literally appear from nowhere. It would disappear just as
suddenly if it inversed the manoeuvre, for example by going back to its original frequency. If
it wants to appear motionless for some time, all it needs to do is tune into the same
progressive frequency as that of the Earth. It has to do this anyway, for if it remained on the
same frequency it would be stuck in time (with its occupants). If it flies over the Earth in
order to visit another place, and at the same time it makes this gap vary in order to differ from
the Earthís frequency, anyone watching on the ground will be tricked as to how quickly time
passes. The effect would be the same as for someone who watches a film that has been filmed
at either high or slow speed. In silent films we could thus see model T Fords shooting off and
taking corners at an outrageous speed only to stop as if they had run into an invisible brick
wall. By playing with the frequency in this way it would be possible to terrify any unfortunate
witnesses who would see the machine disappear from one part of the sky only to reappear
immediately elsewhere, or go back and forth violently between these two points. By playing
with two frequencies at the same time he could even see the machine in double and then melt
back into one entity. It would be possible to perform in reality all of the special effects from
films relating to time.

People who believe in UFOs will have recognised here the main sorts of behaviour reported
by witnesses. We shall not dwell on these, but will take one case where the role of time does
not seem obvious at first. Do you not find that it is strange that people can be glued to the spot
close to a UFO, but manage nonetheless to stay standing? Either their muscles no longer
function at which point they should collapse or they are in some way paralysed and should tilt
over like unbolted statues. What if time, or at least their appreciation of time, had changed?
Maybe they never stopped walking. To move extremely slowly can give the impression of
total immobility. Could this be the only logical explanation for the cases of drivers who
claimed that to their surprise, their car engine stopped and then gradually went back to its
normal speed without them doing anything?

Maybe you feel that without the presence of relativist phenomenon "a la Einstein" it is
impossible to conceive that there could be changes in the speed at which time unfolds. What

should we think then of the extraordinary observations made by Sacks in "Awakenings"
(already mentioned in Chapter 2 - Precognition)?

We should note that the patients mentioned in this book who were treated by this famous
neurologist all suffered from lethargic encephalitis, otherwise known as sleeping sickness, and
had been doing so for decades. When treated with a neurochemical drug, L-Dopa, they all
initially went through a period of being practically healed which unfortunately was followed
by a state of instability with stupefying or terrifying side-effects. We shall look at the
phenomena which involved an acceleration or slowing-down of movements.

Thus, one patient became capable of undertaking simple yet repetitive calculations (such as
substracting 17 from 1012, then 17 from 995, and so on) as quickly as it was possible to
speak, another could speak at the amazing speed of 500 words per minute. Only a recording
(played back slowly) could let one hear what was being said and also witness that not one
syllable was missing. Even more incredible was the case of a patient who, suffering from
nervous ticks, swung his arms up and down so quickly that it was practically impossible to
follow the movements with the eyes! Here again, a tape played slowly gave the speed of five
movements per second!

On the other hand, some patients lived at a slow pace, at least to the onlooker, for they were
convinced that they were acting at normal speed. One could only see that there was actually
any movement when photos were taken of them at regular intervals and then shown quickly
by using a film. One of them, "woken up" by L-Dopa, thought that he took one second to
scratch his nose when in fact he had taken six hours!

This person was living at a speed ten thousand times slower than normal!

Following an accident or illness, a forced immobilization for a few weeks requires
rehabilitation. The body has "forgotten" how to walk and learning this again can take a long
time, sometimes months. Yet, after years of being totally immobile (due to the late discovery
of L-Dopa), when awoken the patient could start to walk immediately, as if he only stopped
doing so the day before. Another could speak instantly, whereas here again rehabilitation was
needed. It seems as if lethargic encephalitis has the property of literally stopping its victims in
time or slowing it down considerably. In relation to the time that had gone by, these patients
also remained remarkably young physically.

To come back to our UFOs, it could not be impossible that a similar phenomenon could have
played a role in these cases of "paralysis". By a process that we do not know of, the proximity
of a "machine" could accelerate time for a witness, at least in his mind, thus making him
believe that his body is immobile, whereas this is not so. The whole experience will have in
fact only taken place in the fraction of a second, thus explaining why he did not fall over. This
hypothesis, of course, only makes us dive deeper into the depths of perplexity regarding the
true meaning of the UFO phenomenon.

If the UFO phenomenon hides some reality and if all of the details about it are not a hoax, one
can be sure that the unfolding of time plays an essential role in this matter. We should not,
however, conclude that this either real or apparent relativity of time should constitute proof
that our visitors come from the future (or why not the past?). Other hypotheses with identical
effects are possible.


If the extra-terrestrial hypothesis enjoys such success, it is not just because of the super-
human capacities of the machines observed nor even due to their weird pilots, but also and
maybe above all because they seem to put an end to our solitude. The idea that man is alone in
this immense universe has a sense of lack of proportion and is worrying. We take it almost as
a punishment.

Luckily, reason tells us that such isolation is statistically highly unlikely. Astronomy, by using
telescopes in orbit, is in its infancy. Unless a major discovery is made meantimes, astronomy
alone will be able to tell us if having planets is a constant or rare characteristic for stars. For
different reasons which we cannot develop here, current thought is that the first solution is
correct. There would therefore be a number of planets within the universe which could
possibly be greater than the number of stars. If this is true, the chances of one or the being
inhabited are very great (by inhabited we mean inhabited by sentient beings). If amongst the
number there should be one inhabited by civlisations ahead of ours and for whom interstellar
travel holds no secrets. It is the representatives of one of these civilisations that (could) pilot

This line of reasoning seems faultless were it not for one major detail : distance.

If we stick to our galaxy, the number of stars is already colossal, around a hundred thousand
million. Its size is proportionally equivalent to that number. Its radius at its greatest measures
around a hundred thousand light years by twenty thousand. The result is that the density of
stars is very low. A galaxy is above all made up of empty space. We have thus calculated that
if two galaxies should collide, they would not even realise it; the chances of two stars meeting
being practically nil. All of this explains why our closest neighbour, the alpha Centaur star
ambles around at some forty thousand billion kilometres from us (4.27 light years). A simple
return journey there at a speed approaching that of light would take at least nine years. Yet no
one can say which is the closest star with a planet inhabited by an intelligent life form more
technologically advanced than ours. Is it at ten, a hundred or a thousand light years away?

Many people believe that science has no limits and that tomorrow we will be able to do things
that cannot be done today. Physics has its laws. These determine what is possible and
impossible. If we eliminate the impossible things, all that is left are possibilities. If everything
is possible there are obviously no longer any laws and the universe has no reason to be.

One of the laws of the universe is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. This
property as brought to the fore by Einstein in his Theory of Restrained Relativity is proved
each day in laboratories throughout the world. It underlies all modern physics. There is no
reason for us to believe that it could one day be called into question. It can seem incredible
that a maximum speed could exist. We cannot see why, when we are close to this limit, we
could not push on the accelerator and overtake it.The answer is very simple and is also part of
the Theory of Relativity. The mass (equivalent to the weight on Earth) of a body increases
with speed. This increase happens more quickly than the increase in speed, in such a way that
at the speed of light the mass becomes infinite. To accelerate further this infinite mass would
take infinite energy, i.e. energy greater than all of the energy contained in the universe... The
obstacle is therefore not a mysterious wall of light, but the mass of the bodies whoses increase

by definition limits their speed. If light can travel at the speed of light it is because its
constituents, photons, are devoid of mass. If you now want to know why these photons devoid
of mass cannot travel faster than the fateful 300.000 km/sec - you are likely to be dissatisfied.
This speed is one of the great constaints of the universe that we are still questioning.

All of this goes to explain that even if we sacrifice whole generations of cosmonautes on
dangerous missions, we will only ever be able to explore a pathetically small part of our

All of which does not, of course, favour our chances of meeting up with other galactical

Our hypothesis on the simultaneity of times could possibly offer a new way forward. It could
be possible to visit distant worlds in a relatively short period of time whilst respecting the
maximum speed of the speed of light. All of the stars are in movement. They turn around the
axis of our galaxy and also have various movements within local star clusters. Rather like an
ice rink where everyone goes where they want, whilst respecting a general sense of rotation.
On this rink I see my friend X. For the moment he is on the other side of the rink and I cannot
speak to him. But as I have a path which is similar to his, I can say for sure that somewhere in
his past X was in more or less at the same place that I am at now. In other words, if I could
put myself on the same frequency as X in his past, I would see him next to me, in the flesh,
and I could talk to him, contrary to the X of my former present who will have disappeared
from my sight in this new reality. Similarly, within the flood of stars contained in our galaxy
there must exist some whose past or future realities are very close to our current position. If
we tune into their frequency we could easily visit their planets, should they have any. Our
choice would therefore be dictated and limited by the trajectory of stars that are likely to cross
our path. This would already be a good start.

The break is over. After having let our imagination wonder it is time to come back to reality.
It is not because our hypothesis opens the doors to the wildest dreams that we should believe
that these can become reality. Every hypothesis has its laws and limits. These are likely to
greatly reduce our wild hopes.

There exists a brain teaser that science-fiction writers like which is known as the paradox of
time travel. There are variations on the theme, but the principle is always the same. Let us
take the most straightforward case as example.

A son goes back in time and his aim is to murder his father before he has the chance to beget
him. This is what he does. The father therefore dies without having had any children. He
therefore did not have a son. This means that the latter could not travel back in time for he
does not exist. Therefore he could not have killed his father. Which means that the latter could
have had a son. All of which means that the son could travel back in time and kill his father.
This can go on forever.

At first glance, if we do not dig deeply, this reasoning seems watertight and contains a
paradox. It makes logic run void. But if we look closer we can see that things have been
simplified to such a point that certain details have been skipped.

When we say that all times co-exist we must never forget that each one is fundamentally
different from the others because of its unique frequency. You cannot therefore take one for
the other. However, this is what we did in the above paradox. And that is where the paradox
came from. Let us go back to the start of the story and imagine the son before he even starts to
travel in time. After all, nothing prevents us from believing that the son still has his father
living in the same present as himself. This is his real father. Both of them share the same
frequency. Therefore, if the son goes back in time to kill his father it cannot be his own father.
It is the one that belongs to another son in another time.

Things are already getting complicated - and we have not finished yet. To reason with the idea
that all times exist at the same time is no easy business. It requires the greatest caution, for it
is an exercise that our brain is not used to performing. The example that we are dealing with
can be a good starting point if our hypothesis should one day prove to be valid. Let us retrace
our journey step by step.

We shall start by numbering the actors in our play. Let us call number 1 son the one who
takes off into the past. We suppose that he is the first of his kind and that he therefore has no
existing future. He does, however, have a past. We shall call the sons that follow one after the
other in his past numbers 2 , 3 and so on. Similarly, we shall call number 1 father the first one
(relating to number 1 son), and father 2, 3 etc... the following ones.

So, number 1 son, shadowed by his alter-egos, goes into his machine and goes back to the
period where one of the fathers from the past has not yet met the future mother (of the future
son). So as not to juggle with ridiculously large numbers, let us simplify the problem by
calling the future begettor father number 101. Thus, as soon as he arrives in the past, number
1 son kills father number 101. When he arrives at the same point in space a fraction of a
second later, number 2 son kills father number 102, then number 3 son kills father number
103 and so the carnage continues - for ever? No! In fact the lines of sons is not infinite. It only
goes from number 1 to number 100. There is no number 101 son for, a we have already seen,
father number 101 is dead (killed by number 1 son) without having procreated.

Consequently, and for the same reason, there is no 102 son, nor 103 etc. To sum up, there are
only sons numbered from 1 to 100 who have killed one hundred fathers numbered 101 to 200.
After this there is a quiet period where due to a lack of sons there are no more massacres. The
inexistant sons carry the numbers 101 to 200 and the unkilled fathers numbers 201 to 300.
And so on. To sum up the whole story we will retain that there are alternate periods of 100
murderous sons and 100 non-existant sons. Corresponding to these periods are identical ones
with alternately 100 murdered fathers and 100 unscathed fathers.

This new version of the story is more complicated than the first one but it takes rigourously
into consideration all of the realities unique to each of the times concerned. There is no longer
a paradox here for the variations follow each other chronologically, they do not superimpose
themselves as in the first case. However, we cannot say that this new rehash is particularly
appealing to our mind. Firstly there is that eternal kill-you,kill-you-not that is like a
nightmare. And it gets worse.

In order to illustrate even more impressively the new obstacle, let us imagine that the son is a
terrorist and that to slay his father he has decided to fill his car with explosives. Number 101
father, as well as his successors will therefore be scattered in millions of pieces. But father
100, as well as his predecessors, was never killed by anyone. We will therefore have to admit

that for two succeeding times there is on one hand a father who is intact and another one that
is pulverised (number 100 father and father number 101). After this, the inverse happens. A
pulverised father should be succeeded by one that is intact (fathers 200 and 201). This is a bit
too much. So much so that it is unacceptable, and not just for our peace of mind..

When we try to imagine the various realities of one man in our mind, it is easier for our
imagination to separate the different protagonists. We therefore obtain an image like a
photograph of a Sioux tribe on the warpath. This also comes from the fact that we are
reasoning on a too wide scale. The multiplicity of times should be restricted to the particle.
This is what gives the order and size between successive realities - a tiny fraction of a
millimetre. You have to insert thousands of millions between two Sioux. If we had the ability
to see at a glance all of the realities of a man we would see a sort of giant snake. Someone
walking in front of a camera switched to pose would provide an image that would illustrate
this idea perfectly.

To return to our murders, it is not a question of imagining a father in a million pieces
following on almost immediately from one that is intact and vice versa. From one particle to
another there cannot be a distance calculated in hundreds of metres as a violent explosion
would cause. To accept this scattering would mean tearing asunder two successive realities.
Yet everything points to the fact that the power joining these two realities must be immense
and therefore their unity is probably indestructable whatever forms of energy may be used.
Such a link cannot be seen by the mind. Most of the particles are made up of temporary sub-
particles called quarks. The strength that links two quarks increases according to the distance
that separates them. It would take infinite energy to separate them totally. The same could be
true for two particles which follow each other in time. It would therefore be impossible to
break the chain and the messages could circulate regardless of the oddities of time, endlessly
and without modification. Our murderer could do nothing against an indestrucible father,
neither blow him up, nor give him the slightest flick, nor just simply appear to him for this
could modify his behaviour and therefore change the course of history and thus provoke a rift
which we believe to be impossible.

But maybe with the same ingredients you could imagine another version of the facts that
could at once reconcile the unchangeable nature of history and the possibility of time travel.
After all, we are new to this trade. We are likely to have many more surprises, and make
many more mistakes!


One of the interesting consequences of our hypothesis on the simultaneity of times is that it
allows us to approach even the most unexpected subjects. We have already seen this with
UFOs , and now the subject of homeopathy is also included in our quest.

Invented over a century and a half ago by Doctor J. Hannemann, homeopathy is a form of
medicine whose basis is the total opposite to conventional medicine, known as allopathy. The
latter combats symptoms with medicines which produce the opposite effect, whereas
homeopathy uses remedies whose actions are similar to the ailment experienced. Thus,
headaches are not counteracted by anti-headache drugs, but on the contrary by a preparation
which causes headaches. This preparation is greatly diluted, for according to the homeopathic

doctrine the dilution is capable of provoking an inverse, therefore curative effect. This bears
some similarity to the use of vaccines.

As everyone knows, traditional medicine, which rallies most doctors, is at war with
homeopathy. It accuses it of having no reasoned basis, an uncontrolled experimental nature
and refusal to comply to the requirements of a comparative study. Homeopathic doctors retort
that no comparison is possible, for their system does not attack the illness but helps man to
defend himself against that illness. Also, the therapy prescribed for the same illness varies
from one person to another. Only by systematising a remedy can you systemise a study. As
for the efficiency of the method, the only proof that you need are the increasing numbers of
homeopathic doctors, two thirds of which have converted from traditional medicine.

It goes without saying that we are not going to get embroiled in this argument. Faithful to our
policy, we are once again going to use the conditional tense and say if homeopathy is a valid
treatment... Let us suppose that this is so. Using a tactic which has already worked well for us,
let us touch the most sensitive point in the issue - infinitesimal doses.

The most common preparation for a homeopathic remedy is to dilute a substance (tincture)
into a solvent, either water or alcohol, in the proportions of one drop for 99 drops
(centesimal). After having shaken this solution, we take one drop and we mix this again with
99 drops of solvent. We shake and then start again. We quickly arrive at a large disproportion
between the tincture and the solvent. At first handling the proportions are 1 for 100 parts.
Your whisky-soda, if served in the same proportions, would already taste like pure water. By
the second dilution the ration will be 1 for 10.000 (100 X 100). By the third dilution it will be
1 per 1.000.000! And this kind of operation can be undertaken up to 30 times! We thus obtain
a ratio of 1 for such an immense number (1 followed by 60 zeros) that it totally escapes our
understanding. At this stage, as we have calculated, we can be sure that there is not the
slightest molecule of the initial product left in the solvent! How can we hope to cure with a
product that is not actually in the treatment is the sneering comment that opponents to
homeopathy ask? The objection is too important for us to avoid it.

Homeopathic doctors choose the only way out possible, declaring that the solvent had kept
the original substance in its memory! It had to be so, they claimed, because experiments
showed that the remedy was effective. They added that in medicine it is better to know that
something works rather than how it works. One must admit that as far as learning and
curiosity are concerned this is not a satisfactory answer. But we cannot see what other
explanation they could have provided.

This is where we shall add our contribution.

If all times exist simultaneously, we cannot say that the tincture disappears after thirty
successive dilutions.

The product is still there, intact, not in our present, but in the past. The patient who has
swallowed the homeopathic medicine is linked to the original product by all of its successive
realities. The human body, going back in time, thus finds the increasingly rich solutions right
up to the product itself, in its pure state, in the bottle where the first drop was taken. If the
body homes into times even further back it will find the agents used to purify the water and
even the frogs that frolicked about in it. But it will only take that which is useful, either

because it is programmed to do so, or because the brain tells it that it has taken a medicine and
this is what needs to be found, nothing else.

If our hypothesis therefore gives a helping hand to homeopathy by eradicating one of the main
arguments used by detractors, the matter is not that simple. Why, for example, could a
substance from the past be more effective than the same product in the present time? Could
there be some unknown chemical reaction between times which we have missed up until now
because we have not imagined that it was possible? Can we attach this phenomenon to the
biological transmutations that we talked of earlier or to miracle healing? This is highly

Whatever the case, let us note once more that each time we have approached an "impossible"
problem leading to absurd conclusions, it is by using the idea of the multiplicity of times that
we have been able to solve it.

We still do not know if homeopathy is a valid treatment, but we can be sure that if this is the
case, our hypothesis is the only real path that leads to a logical explanation thereof.


What we ask of a new hypothesis is that it places itself within the context of our scientific
knowledge. What use is there in having a theory that explains the paranormal if it cannot be
accepted by science? A hypothesis based upon a dubious subject by contamination becomes
dubious itself.

Of course we have seen that the multiplicity of times could help us to understand memory,
heredity and associated problems. Such issues are far from the paranormal. Yet, these are also
the ugly ducklings of science, as are all matters pertaining to human beings. Within the living
being lies a sort of mysterious aura that is not found in other branches of science dedicated to
the study of more down to earth problems. Chemistry, mathematics or physics do not
experience such moods.

The perfect situation would be to confront our ideas with one of these forms of science
deemed "non suspect" Whilst we are at it, let us go all the way and cast our attention onto the
one that underlies all of the others - physics. We have already come into contact with physics
- in Chapter Two, if you remember, when we were asking about the stones that were thrown
and how they calculated their trajectory. Maybe you thought at that point that these strange
questions were born out of the authorís warped mind? You would be doing him too great an
honour to presume so. He borrowed them from scientific literature. Not because they are often
mentioned, for questions without answers are not the favourite topic of scientific columnists
who prefer to write about progress. But enough is said about them for us to understand that
any normally constituted physicist has one day asked himself the same questions whilst
studying the implications of inertial speed.

We have already seen how we can provide the beginnings of a solution to the principle of
intertia by using the simultaneity of times. Each stone from each time is sucked up by the one
that precedes it and is pushed forward by the one behind. Each stone is therefore linked to the
precise point in the past where the person throwing the stone perpetually suceeds himself. The

stone in all of its chronological realities would look like a long javelin linking the hand of the
person throwing it to the point where it hits the ground. The stone in the present would be a
slice of the javelin that would in some way act as his guide.

But we are going to try and do better by tackling the very basis of modern physics, the all-
powerful quantum mechanics.

Our aim here is not to summarize the monument that is quantum mechanics. Born around
three-quarters of a century ago, it has remained unshakeable to this day. It is the essential and
both complete and perfect tool for illustrating the world of particles, which is its favourite
medium. The term "illustrate" used here must be taken in its largest sense and not as if it
could provide real images. On the contrary, qunatum mechanics, or QM as it is known, is one
of the highest examples of abstraction. Rumour has it that only the most exceptional
researchers can manage to instinctively visualise this theory. So it must be difficult !

In order to discourage us even further, QM is also very difficult to study. However, as luck
would have it, with QM it is possible to separate the mathematics from the "philosophy".
Although the former requires a high level of basic knowledge, the latter should, on the other
hand, more easily understood by the uninitiated. If this easier approach is not favoured by the
majority of physicists, it is because scientists are usually not too keen to venture into the
quicksands of philosophical uncertainty. They prefer to stick to the practical use of the
mathematical tool. This attitude has given rise to the expression "quantum cooking", for QM
is used, according to requirements, like recipes. This should not be seen as a derogatory term,
on the contrary, this cooking is usually very successful.

By now, you are most probably asking yourself what you are doing in this tricky business if
you are not an expert. The reason is because this formidable theory has been popularized so
that everyone can have access to it, at least regarding its spirit and results. This way of
bridging the subject is passionately interesting, for it allows us to paint quite a precise picture
of the strange universe that we live in where some of the more extraordinary aspects continue
to baffle us.

The easiest way for you to choose your book on QM is as follows. You go into a bookshop
specializing in scientific books. Go to the physics bookshelf and there you will find, usually
grouped together, some works on quantum mechanics. You take them out one at a time with
your left hand on the spine and the right hand opposite. Then gently fold the book backwards
whilst pressing your right thumb on the edge of the pages - this will make them quickly flick
before your eyes. Two things can happen at this point. Either your horrified gaze will see a
flood of mathematical equations, or your will see an avalanche of words. In the first case you
will put the book back on the shelf. In the second case, the book is yours. You can never go
wrong, for the two styles are never mixed. But whilst waiting to make this essential purchase,
let us see what we can already say about this "beast".

Quantum mechanics is a theory designed to explain what happens on an infinitely small scale,
and more particularly, at particle level. It is opposed to classical mechanics which essentially
governs our macroscopic world (i.e. our daily life). Physicists were shocked when they
realised that traditional physics, which is efficient and obvious at our level, becomes useless

when you arrive at a certain scale. Were we going to live with two sorts of physics? Yes - this
is what happened! We now know, however, that this difference is only apparent.

At our scale, the properties of a particle are erased by general properties. A pull-over has a
neck and two sleeves but the stitch of that pullover has neither neck nor sleeves. A stitch is a
piece of wool twisted around itself. A jumper is not a thread twisted around itself. According
to scale, the nature of things changes without there being any contradiction.

But what makes quatnum mechanics so revolutionary?

Firstly, its energy is continuous. In a car, nothing prevents you from accelerating
progressively from 0 to 100 km/hr. If cars existed along the same dimensions of particles, the
energy they would have would mean that you could only drive at set speeds, 0, 10, 20, ... to
100 km/h. We would go from 10 to 20 km/hr or 60 to 70 km/hr without any transition. In
quantum mechanics these sudden energy leaps are counted in an elementary unit known as a
quantum (plural : quanta).

Another unsettling characteristic of this scale is the "uncertainty principle". By using classical
mechanics we can easily calculate the precise position of an athlete if we know his starting
point, time, speed and direction. This is no longer true if the athlete is a particle. It can no
longer be localised. The most that we will be able to calculate is the probability of finding it at
a particular place. We must stress that this inderterminacy is not the result of ignorance on our
behalf, but due to a basic impossibility that we will never be able to clarify. Forget the picture
of a particle sensibly travelling from A to B. Everything happens as if it simultaneously
followed various routes and it is only at point B, once it is detected, that it acquires a reality
and that one of its trajectories is "chosen". Does this seem mad to you? You are right - it is!

Another even more disturbing property is inseparability. According to QM, two particles who
have shared a common experience retain the same properties. They can be separated in the
sense that they can be distanced one from the other, but they cannot be separated in the sense
that they will no longer have anything more in common. It is in these terms that we should
understand the word inseparability. One of the most spectacular consequences of this
relationship at a distance is that any action that is aimed at one of the particles will
automatically echo onto the other and moreover instantaneously, however great the distance
might be between them. To illustrate how wild these events are we shall translate them into an
example on our scale.

Imagine a couple. They have been married for a few years (this is their common experience).
One day they decide to separate and get divorced. She goes to live in Canada and he chooses
Australia, to put the greatest possible distance between them (possibly due to their
separation?). For whatever reason, he feels emotions surfacing that he had always suppressed.
What if he was not really a man? What if his inner nature was to be a woman? By
coincidence, a scientist lives in Melbourne who has delevoped an amazing machine which can
perform a sex change in a trice. You push a button, a beam of light appears and bang! the
transformation takes place! Convinced that the method is effective, our man makes an
appointment and the next day he goes into the machine and everything goes according to plan.
In a fraction of a second he has become a fully-fledged woman!

On the other side of the world in a friendly restaurant in Quebec, our newly-divorced lady
flutters her eyelashes at a brash fur trader with whom she intends to start a new life. Suddenly,

at the very same moment when her ex-husband becomes a woman, she changes into a man in
front of her lover who looks on flabbergasted!

This is the sort of alarming adventure that could happen to a couple if they were quantum in
nature. The simple fact that they both made a couple means that they are condemned to
remain that way forever. Yet a couple is made up of a man and a woman. So, if one of the
parties changes sex, the other should to the same, otherwise the couple will obviously no
longer exist. The double transformation must take place at the same moment, even if she is on
Earth and he is on Mars or at the other end of the Galaxy! Luckily things do not happen this
way in our macroscopic world. On the other hand, in the world of particles this is exactly how
things work. They do not have a gender, of course, but they have other characteristics such as
direction, polarisation, etc. In the latter case, experiments have been held which show the
justification of inseparability.

Einstein could never admit that inseparability existed. In his opinion, as soon as two particles
were separated by a significant distance they became totally independent. As the father of
relativity, he who proved that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, how could he
accept the idea that influences exerted from a distance could be instanteneously propogated?

Einstein died too early to know that experiments backed up the idea that he found so deeply
absurd. Yet you might say that if physicists accept both the maximum speed of light and the
instantaneous influences at a distance, how can they reconcile two such contradictory

They readily admit that they cannot. However, this does not prevent some of them from
imagining that some sorts of signals could exist which would have no material effect and
which would therefore escape the laws that apply to the rest of physics.But most researchers
have given up hope that they will find a rational explanation (according to our human concept
of what is rational) for this problem. The interpretation of these experiments in terms of
reality thus remains elusive.

The time has now come to use our hypothesis. We have seen how abstract notions such as
locating "yesterday" and "tomorrow" in space, which are overwhelming for our mind, become
clear and logical when we accept that all times exist at once. Our intellectual incapacity to
conceptualise these came from the false data that we were being fed. Armed with a unique
present, localising other times became an absurd idea, whereas with the multiplicity of times
we could simply situate in our own space.

Could it be that the same hypothesis could easily illustrate inseparability and thus remove its
imprecision? The answer is yes and this is most probably the most determining argument in
this book which favours the simultaneity of times.

The insurmountable difficulty faced by phyisicts is to imagine a link joining two particles
separated in space in our single and unique present. What telephone line joins them together?
Or by which radio do they communicate? And why is their shared past so essential?

Things become easier if all times exist simultaneously. The two particles that were one due to
their shared experience and were then separated are like the branch of a tree that separates,
giving rise to two seemingly independent branches. Nothing joins the tips of these branches in
the present (or in the air), but they are solidly joined by the past via the wood at the junction

of the branch. If we cut one of the two branches, the other will grow more quickly, for it will
benefit from having more sap. Similarly, a "message" could go from a particle, back in time
via all of its successive realities and arrive at the place in the past where there was a common
experience. After this, the message will go back through all of the successive realities to the
other particle, and right up to the present time. We cannot think of a more obvious path. What
we need to know, of course, is what is the nature of this message that joins chronological
times. I fear that the reply to this question requires some time. As I have said before, we are
only at the start of our adventure and it is difficult to try and do too many things at once.

On the other hand, what we can already do is to reconcile that which is irreconcilable. QM
advocates the immediacy of influences at a distance whilst respecting the ban of going faster
than the speed of light. We have seen that this situation is uncomfortable. To accept the reality
of all times makes things a lot more straightforward.

Let us pick up the incredible story of our quantum couple once again and analyse their
misadventures in the light of our hypothesis. All times now exist at once and, consequently,
when our hero decided to change sex, all he needed to do was imitate all of those previous
realities which already did so before him. Supposing that he and his wife are separated today
by a distance of one light year. According to relativity it will take one year for the message to
pass from one person to the other. But this can also be said to be true for all other times.
Consequently, if we choose a one-year-old reality, the message sent will arrive today and not
in a yearís time, thus giving the illusion of being instantaneous! At the moment when our man
changes sex, the wife already receives the message given out by her husbandís past self.

Nothing, in fact, prevents her from receiving the message from one of her husbandís even
older realities and she could thus be informed before the husbandís transformation even took
place. All of this is totally logical if all times exist at once and each constantly emits the same
message, which is therefore constantly picked-up by all of the other times.

To go back to our particles, we will therefore admit that they are constantly in contact with
those that shared their past, by the means of their successive realities. We shall also admit that
messages travel at a finite speed but the moment of their emission influences the moment of
reception and can thus seem to provide the equivalent of an instantaneous event.

Let us now consider another mystery of QM, known as the two-hole experiment.

If we throw a stone into water, we create a set of concentric circles going out from the area of
impact. If we throw two stones at once the waves from the two points will meet and interfere
with each other. We will thus observe an alternance between still and wavy zones. The still
areas come from where the crest of a wave meets the trough of another. The trough and crest
cancel each other out and leave the level of the water unchanged. In the wavy zones, a crest
meets a crest and a trough a trough. By addition we therefore obtain a higher or lower level of
the average water level.

A similar phenomenon can be observed with light. But we cannot demonstrate it by throwing
stones.We have to proceed differently. If we project monochrome light onto a screen pierced
with a small hole, we observe, on a second screen placed behind the first one, the projection
of a circle of light with unclear edges. If we pierce a second hole very close to the first, we do

not see a larger circle, as we would imagine (due to the addition of the two circles
superimposed upon each other), but rather a whole series of lines that are alternately bright
and dark. It is by using such an experiment that Young discovered the wave-like nature of
light. As for water there was interference, and therefore waves.

Physicists being curious by nature, they then asked themselves what would happen if the light
were reduced to a minimum. As light is a current of particles (photons), to reduce it in this
case consists of reducing the number of photons - the maximum reduction possible being to a
single unit - we will therefore use apparatus capable of producing one photon at a time.
Something incredible happened. After a certain period of time spent firing one photon at a
time, a photographic plate (put at the same place as the second screen) revealed the same light
stripes as before. In other words, each single photon showed interference, but with what?

Interference can only take place when there are two parties.This requires one photon to go
through the left hand hole and one the right. Yet there is only one in total. The idea was
therefore put forward that the photon was possibly more complex that originally thought and
therefore when it went through the hole, a part of it slipped by the other hole and thus played
the part of the missing partner. Detecting devices placed close to the holes proved that this
was not so. A photon went through one hole or the other but never through both at once.
Numerous other hypotheses were put forward but were all rejected because they were
incompatible with the facts or the theory. To this day there is no real solution to this mystery.

Let us try our luck with our hypothesis.

As we believe that all times exist simultaneously, a single photon does not exist. A particle is
only alone if it is isolated in a unique present. Otherwise it is one of a tribe whose members
follow each other in line. We have seen that it is reasonable to believe that one major force
joins these chronological realities together and in this respect we compared it to the force that
joins quarks. As they are so strongly linked, it is impossible that a photon could pass by one
hole and its immediate successor could miss the hole and stay stuck on the screen. If one goes
through then they should all do so. One for all and all for one, as they say!

But do they have to go through the same hole? On first sight it would be tempting to say yes.
But if we go back to the quarks, we doubt the fact. The quarks are definitely so strongly
joined that they cannot go far from one another but this does not prevent them from having
great freedom of movement at a very short distance. This would, in fact, explain many of their

If the same were true of our photon tribe, we could thus compare them to mountaineers roped
together. If the first one steps froward, the others have to follow. They cannot dawdle. On the
other hand, if the leader stumbles on a stone, the others will not necessarily do so. The rope
slack allows for one or two steps to the side. Depending on each personís mood, it is possible
to step either to the left or right of the stone. This does not prevent the expedition from
moving forward.

Similarly, we can thus imagine that in the sucession of photons in different times, one or the
other could slip through one of the holes by accident. As the two holes are beng used, it is
logical that the successive realities of one solitary photon could intefere (with this).

Suddenly, the vagueness that we referred to previously can also be represented by our image
of hiking mountaineers. Remember that a photon goes from A and arrives at B and cannot be
located between those points for statistically it is everywhere at once!

For a photon to go from A means that an electron emitted it at point A. Similarly, arriving at
B means that another electron absorbed it at point B. We shall illustrate these two electrons by
two wells. From one comes the roped party of mountaineers (who are also potholers!) and at
the other point they enter underground (see the cover of this book). We can therefore situate
each mountaineer in A because the well is supposed to be pinpointed exactly; and the same
applies for B. On the other hand, chaos rules between A and B. Making the most of the slight
slack in each rope, each mounaineer has taken one or two steps to the side. Sometimes these
steps have added up if successive mountaineers have chosen the same side which means that
the person furthest to one side is at a great distance. However, all of the group will, on the
whole follow a straight line from A to B and this will be even more so if the distance AB is
great, for the many possibilities (either to the right or left) will have a tendancy to cancel each
other out.

This is a perfect example of the amazing fact that quantuim mechanics teaches us : light does
not necessarily travel in a straight line, but tends to follow this path if the path chosen is long

 We should not believe that this is a miracle, but we should note that our theory on the
simultaneity of times seems to fit well with the requirements of quantum mechanics. We
could see in this the possiblity of imagining that which is hard to imagine.

Photons are not, of course, joined by a rope. We could therefore ask ourselves, as we do not
know the true nature of light, if we have the right to reason using such a trivial image as that
of our mountaineers. We have the right to do so, and logic says we can do so. All of the works
dedicated to QM warn the reader : Beware! Do not use examples taken from our macroscopic
world as these have no value at particle level. What you will discover bears no relation to
what your intuition might suggest. Forget images, for nothing you could imagine will bear
any ressemblance to this new reality.

We have, on the contrary shown how an image could be used, and the mountaineers coming
from our macroscopic world could behave in a way that is incredibly similar to that of
particles from the infinitely minute world.

It is useful to add here that we are not the first to adventure into bold speculation concerning
the chronology of events. The physician Richard Feynman already showed that it was
mathematically possible to consider an antiparticle travelling in the same direction as time as
a particle travelling in the opposite direction to time. If at first he maintained that this was a
real possibility, he seems to then have sided with orthodox beliefs, i.e. the more traditional
concept of a unique direction for time, from the past to the future.

The same was not true for another great phyisician, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, who was the
first to admit (in 1947) that time could be travelled in both directions. He postulated for the

existence of a "delayed" wavelength, which travels through time in the usual direction and an
"advanced" wave that goes back through time. This allowed him, amongst other things, to
solve the paradox of inseparability.

Let us go back to the example of our couple (used to illustrate the shared past of two
particles). At the same moment that the hero changes sex (polarization) this causes the inverse
change in his ex-wife at the same moment.

The explanation according to the Costa de Beauregardís theory is as follows:

At the same time that the ex-husband changes sex, he unhooks his "temporal telephone"
(which works against time, from the future to the past) and dials his wifeís number (that she
had when they were married, i.e. his own number for they shared the same phone at the time).
He explains what has happened to him and when this happened. From that moment on his
wife, who has been warned, knows that she will have to change sex in a precise future time, in
order to save the notion of a male-female couple (for the needs of our story, we presume that
the message itself is the factor that triggers the process of change).

Our explanation (in summary form) is as follows:

It is the same story as above, apart from it is not the ex-husband himself who gives the phone
call, but one of his preceding egos (who has therefore already lived through the sex-change
before him). As this action took place before his act, the message follows the normal direction
of time, past to future.

If you still doubt the possiblitiy of obtaining information from the future with a time arrow
going towards the future, here is a last example that will clear the matter once and for all. We
shall once again use the image of a train that aptly situates the different successive times (the
carriages) and the events (constant in relation to the train). Remember, as usual, that all of our
comparisons are only valid if they are applied at particule level (in this exmaple, the whole
train, with all of its carriages, is the image for a single and unique particule).

A bolt lies on the rails - this is a fixed event. The train moves constantly, and each carriage in
turn feels the clang when the wheels go over the bolt. In my carriage (containing all of my
present world), it is midday. I therefore declare that the time is twelve oíclock for the whole
train. In one hourís time I will pass over the bolt, but I know nothing of this because it takes
place in the future. Question : how can I now receive, at twelve o'clock, the message
regarding this future encounter with the bolt?

Because the train is very long, somewhere before my carriage there is one that is currently
going over the bolt. The impact shakes the carriage but also the rail - this sends a shock wave
towards the rear of the train, to my carriage. This shock wave represents the message that I
hope to receive at twelve oíclock. Unfortunately, as the whole train is at twelve oíclock, the
shock wave also started at the same time and if it needs one hour to reach me, I will only

receive it at one oíclock, i.e. one hour too late. In fact, the ideal situation would have been if it
started one hour earlier, at eleven oíclock. Thus, with the hour needed for its journey it would
have reached me a twelve oíclock, as I wanted.

But such a wave was given at eleven oíclock. In all of the carriages that have already gone
over the bolt there must be one, towards the head of the train, that was sufficiently ahead of
the others so that its own passage over the bolt took place one hour earlier, at eleven oíclock.
It is from this past event that the message has come and not from the event that is currently
taking place.

Does this message (the shock wave along the rails) travel in the usual direction of time? Yes,
of course, because it was given at eleven oíclock and arrived at twelve. Instead of a shock
wave, we could have imagined that a passenger in the eleven oíclock carriage passed a
message through the window to a pedestrian who was walking back up the train, along the
rails. When he got level with my carriage he would have given me the message. Who would
maintain that this man got younger with each step, just because he was walking in the
opposite direction to the train? If this were so, there would be hoards of strolling alongside
railway lines!

The shock given to the rails by the bolt does not just take the form of a mechanical wave
towards the rear of the train. An identical wave goes towards the head of the train. We can
apply the same line of reasoning to it and conlcude that the message of the impact can come
to me after I have experienced the event, therefore giving me the memory (retrocognition) of
the event. And, for the same reasons as before, this message would also travel in the usual
time direction.

To summarize, any message, wherever it may come from, ALWAYS travels from past to
future. This conforms in every way to what science has always maintained on this point - at
least we are not talking heresy! The opposite is so if we take the principle that only one
present really exists. In this case, our train would only be made up of one carriage. If this
carriage went over the bolt at 1pm and I wish to be informed of the fact at midday, then we
will have to imagine that a message can go back in time and go from 1pm to midday.

We would thus arrive at the same outcome as with multiple times. We must admit that going
back in time is a very hard concept to accept for a rational, Cartesian mind. It is harder to
imagine than the simultaneity of times which can be illustrated by a simple train image
without requiring any other form of mental torture.


In Agatha Christie novels, the detective Hercule Poirot always explains in the last pages how
he came to the conclusion that X was guilty. We then think that the story is finished, but in
the last lines he suddenly changes his mind. X is not guilty but he had to say so in order to
confound Y, the real guilty party.

Here we will also experience such a turning of tables, with the difference that we might not be
able to ascertain who out of X or Y is really guilty. Not everyone can be as clever as Hercule

In the paradox of time travel, we have supposed that if we travel far enough into the future we
will end up by finding the traveller who will be the first in his kind - the traveller that would,
in fact, have no future. On the one hand this is logical, and also makes our reasoning easier.
What we did not say at the time, to keep simple what was already quite a confused story, was
that this way of looking at things is in contradiction with the concept of precognition. As we
are now coming to the end of our journey together, it is time to set the record straight.

Let us call number 1 the man who is at the end of the future. If 1 is the first of his kind, he
cannot experience precognition, for no mesage can come to him from a future that does not
exist. But 20 (who is one of 1ís past realities) can, for example, experience precognition
because 1 is there to inform him. 20 has therefore been able to live an experience that 1 has
not known. Yet an experience can change a life. 20, the man who sees into the future, can
write a book to explain in detail his prediction and its fulfilment. This book will be written,
published, read and commented upon. Many people will be involved, who in turn, etc. In
other words, the news will spread like wildfire. For 1, no such luck. No precognition,
therefore no book, therefore none of the things that follow. We therefore find ourselves in the
same position as the time traveller, and we will have to admit that two totally different
realities can follow each other. We have seen that this causes to a break and that this break
gave rise to insurmountable difficulties when dealing at particle level.

So what?

So, the situation is very straightforward. There are two possibilities:

In the first case, we must admit that there is no starting point for our history. This implies that
everything exists since time immemorial. This can be hard to imagine, but the same can be
said for the opposite. If everything does not exist since the beginning of time, it means that
before that there was "nothing" since all time. "Nothing" was therefore eternal. But then why
would there be "something" one day? Physicists explain that time only exists in relation to the
universe. No universe means no time. But what replaced time when time did not exist? The
most simple option is to imagine that the universe is eternal, with no beginning nor end.
Infinity in time or space are things we cannot imagine, but we have seen how the
unimaginable can stem from asking the wrong questions.

For the second possibility, we must admit that precognition is impossible. All of our
hypothesis has been built on a phenomenon that does not exist. After all, this is possible.

The situation seems inextricable. Hercule Poirot presented us with two suspects, X and Y who
both seemed as guilty (or innocent) as each other. Which one should we choose? Is the story
doomed to failiure?

There is a ray of hope. X and Y could both be innocent. It is Z, a third rogue who is the real
culprit. But does this third rogue really exist?

To reason using the multiplicity of times is, as we have already seen, a hazardous task. We
often forget a piece of information on the way. This could possibly be what has happened
here. This piece of information could be memory - let us go back to the beginning again.

1 is the first of his kind. He therefore has no future. Something happens to him. He warns 20
of this who therefore acquires precognition. Why did he warn 20 and not 19, for example?
Because there obviously needs to be a delay between the event and its prediction. Otherwise
where would the precognition come in? We can decide that in our story the delay is the time
that separates 1 from 20. Therefore 20 receives the message from 1 but 19 does not receive
anything because there was no one before 1 to send it to him. Thus, 20 experienced
precognition and 19 did not. 20 therefore knows the event that will happen and 19 knows
nothing about it.

Up to this point our reasoning is exactly the same as used in the first explanation.

But this can be the point in the reasoning where we slip on a banana skin. It is false to say that
19 does not know what will happen. He does know. He knows because it is in his memory.
And who is 19ís memory, but 20 ! 20 is the one who had the premonition. Therefore 19 has in
his memory the premonition from 20, therefore as this is his own memory, 19 is convinced
that he personally experienced this premonition. The same reasoning applies to 18, 17, 16 and
so on until we reach 1, for each of them has 20 in their memories. This means that 1, who has
no existing future and who therefore cannot experience precognition, is nonetheless sure that
he has experienced this because it is in his memory. From then on, it is impossible to think
that 20 could write a book that 1 could not have written, thus causing a rift in the sequence of
events. 1 and 20 both write the same book, one because he thinks he had a premonition, and
the other because he really had one. There is therefore no hiatus.

Our error, once again, came from forgetting that all times are constantly linked. A man can
only function in relation to this. When reduced to his present slice of time he represents
nothing. He is motionless, still in time - a photo as opposed to a film.

This is just one scenario. Nothing stops you from imagining others. So many combinations
are possible when one admits that all times are constantly linked.


Those who believed in the mad theory that the Earth was round were so sure of themselves
that two centuries before Jesus Christ they had already calculated its circumference (and were
only about 300 km out). Despite this and many arguments as obvious as the Earthís shadow
projected onto the moon during eclipses, the defenders of a flat Earth never gave in. Of course
the best reasons "on paper" could not equal tangible proof . And the best proof was surely to
see for oneself, by going around the world? It was Magellan who later showed that this was
possible. Some sad people still had to comment that being able to circumnavigate a volume in
no way implied that this was round. One can just as easily go around a cube and even a
plateau. A fly can do this. Yet there is no point preaching to someone who does not want to
listen and to this day there are eccentrics who claim that the photos of the Earth taken from
space have been tampered with, to hide the fact that it is, in fact, flat!

The problem is the same for this other wild hypothesis on the co-existence of times. The
arguments that we have used here will definitely not meet with unanimous approval.
Considering the volume of the pill to swallow, it would pass more easily if accompanied by
something more substantial than words. Ideally we should be able to witness another time
with our own eyes. But before we can build a machine that would let us do so, we would first
have to know that which differentiates one time from another. We have assumed that each
chronological time had its own frequency.

This hypothesis has the advantage of being in harmony with current physics which privilege a
wave-like concept for matter (and therefore why not of time?). As well as this idea, we cannot
see who or what we should believe. Nothing exists which could be equivalent to a frequency.
It would therefore be logical, for example, to start searching by trying to uncover the
fundamental frequency of our present time.

The notion of a fundamental frequency which characterizes our present infers that this is a
constant frequency. However, the notion of fundamental constants is not unknown in physics.
On the contrary, they form the basis to our knowledge. We could therefore possibly discover a
new constant which would fulfill our requirements. Unless an existing one could do the job.
We shall let the physicists fight this matter out.

Another avenue for research could be astonomy. If all of stars from all times existed at once,
the density of this astral population would be immense. On the other hand, when we affirm
that different frequencies ensure the invisibility and untangibility of chronological realities,
maybe this should be taken with a pinch of salt. A glass will start to vibrate because of
resonance if its surroundings vibrate at the same frequency. Yet it is not completely right to
believe that it would not vibrate at another frequency. The phenomenon of harmonics exists,
where the frequency of sounds are a whole multiple of the base sound. This means that there
can be inteference between the harmonic waves. It ensues that different chronological realities
could interact on pre-determined frequencies, which would render visible and tangible that
which should not be so. What we see in the sky is perhaps the sum of stars and their
harmonics. Amongst them we should be able to find one or the other of our sunís
chronological realities. The first consequence of this idea would be that the number of
different stars that we can see in our present would be smaller than we imagine. But here
again we are sliding towards the fantastic. We should, no doubt, think about more unobtrusive
interactions (which would not prevent them from being significant in a cosmic sense). Let us
leave the astonomists to decide in this delicate matter.

Another possible avenue for exploration could be to study the human mind in light of our
hypothesis. It would thus be interesting to research into how it communicates with its kind in
other times. What signals does it use? Or rather where are the transmitter and receivers
located? Is there an aeriel? Can the communication be influenced? Here it is the brain
specialists who will have to work on this idea.

We should also not forget the mental approach. The fact that we believe in the simultaneity of
times could possibly lift certain psychological barriers that our unconscious places to prevent
us from having access to the paranormal world, or at least to a more intelligent usage of our
brain? In the same way as therapy would rid us of a taboo. Maybe we could trap our mind in
some way so that it would have to reveal itself? By thinking of our other egos, maybe we
could in the long term experience a kind of complicity that would facilitate exchanges

between them? We can each fight our own internal battle similar to a game of chess with the
difference that we are playing against ourselves.

As we have already said, this book is possibly but a castle built on sand. But as the pages
unfurl we have provided so many remarkable and fascinating examples that it would be
difficult for us to live without them, should they disappear.

We will therefore have to build another castle.

Also filled with dreams.

But what can be more exhilarating than to dream?


Joseph was josephying. Someone cut his throat, his blood poured forth and now he josephies
no more!



The phrase from LE DANTEC mentioned on the previous page, perfectly summarizes the
materialistic stance. Joseph is dead, therefore he josephies no more! This means : he is dead
and there is nothing after death.

Materialism is a doctorine which affirms that nothing other than matter exists. Thought iteslf
is a purely material phenomenon. It can only exist if there is matter to create it. Once the
organization of the matter is destroyed, life ceases and with it thought. This belief is
confirmed by PoincarÈ in one succinct phrase : the mind is but a lightning bolt between two
eternities of night.

It is obvious that this philosophical concept is rather despondent. It implies that we are just an
accident of nature. Some even prefer the word error and go as far as say that we are the mould
of the planet. This is a rather harsh judgement of our presence on Earth!

Yet materialism is not totally negative and many people live with it very well. It is deeply
rational and is based on reason. In fact, it is the only attitude that is truly scientific for it uses
the same logic and processes for reasoning as science itself. I think. I receive a blow to the
head. My circulation is disturbed. I pass out. I stop thinking. Circulation comes back. I come
to. I start thinking again.

Is this not the way a machine works? All is in perfect order therefore it works; a piece is
faulty and it does not work, or works badly. But can a machine be intelligent (in the human
sense of the word)? We should look at the incredible progress in the world of electronics. The
expression "artificial intelligence", which initially shocked people no longer does so. Who
would have guessed only a few years ago the bounds forward that this form of science would
make? Where will we be in a hundred or a thousand yearsí time? Can you swear that artificial
intelligence is but a utopic idea?

We could always argue that having artifical intelligence would not stop one from having a
soul (meaning mankind and not machines, of course). But such an argument cannot be made
to a materialist. Apart from the fact that it duplicates the act of thought (they represent the
same ego, donít they?), the soul has the crippling fault of being immaterial. Have we ever
seen in science the slightest justification that a thought can exist without any support?

On the other hand, even if we suppose that "life" exists after death, how can we state that it
would be more pleasant than the one just left? On this issue, I would like to tell you a story
that illustrates this point well.

When I was a student, I had an artist friend who had the talent of entertaining me with his
fertile imagination and his taste for the absurd. One day he drew a compass which traced a
perfect square! This shows you the sort of person he was. But once I saw him turn up with a
look of satisfaction on his face. His face told me that this was a great day. He must have
surpassed himself. He smiled and told me that he had just had the most horrible idea that a
human being had ever experienced! Eat your heart out Edgar Poe, Lovecraft and the great

"Imagine", he said, "that one day science manages to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
there is a life after death and that this life is an unmentionable horror, which makes hell look
like a picnic and that no one can escape from it, whatever life they lived on earth - good or

"Imagine the situation. Poor horrified human beings living in fear of dying. The idea of what
awaits them would be so unbearable that they would want to commit suicide just to stop
thinking about it. But this would be worse still, for it would only bring the inevitable
nightmare closer! That ís it", he said, waiting for my reaction. After thinking for a minute or
so, I had to admit that I had never heard such an abominable tale and that I doubted whether
anyone could do better one day. I congratulated him as one does someone who is the world
champion in his field.

I have not told this tale in order to frighten you. Please forgive me if this is the case. As an
antidote I shall tell you this : imagine that the opposite is true - the afterlife is marvellous, for
everyone. We shall all go to heaven!

To return to materialism, we must acknowledge that the doctorine defends itself well against
all the others, but it takes a strong character to practise it daily, especially if your earthly
existence is not a happy one.

I often wonder if the best solution might not be to believe strongly in a better future life, even
if no such life really exists. If when we die a single minute goes by before we embark on our
new unknown life, would it not be better for that minute to last eternally?

Because we must pass by death, what does it matter at that point if there is nothing
afterwards? It is during life that this problem has its importance, for that is when we have to
make a choice. Or, as some prefer, never think about it ..


About 70% of the Earthís population belongs to one of the six major religions (in alphabetical
order): Animist buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Muslim,
Shintoism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism. We could imagine that it would be relatively simple
to know what most people expect after death.Ten religions, therefore ten afterlives?
Unfortunately, this simple word does not feature in our worldwide dictionary.

Each religion is divided into a certain number of branches and they themselves have local
variations, without mentioning the innumerous sects which surround them. Even within one
closed community there can be different views on the doctorine according to the different
personnalities of the people within that community. From this explosion of beliefs comes a
multitude of afterlives which we could not possibly present here. We will therefore just
briefly skip through them, for all we need is a general overview to help highlight the
similarities, if there are any.

It can seem surprising that religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which are built
solely around books revealed by God himself (old and new testament, Koran), and where not
one iota can be changed, could have generated different concepts on the afterlife. This comes
from the fact that curiously enough this major issue is only touched upon in the texts. The
lack of precision concerning our future therefore allows for all sorts of interpretations.


The old testament is the fruit of various revelations by God running over many centuries. In
the most ancient times we only find vague hints of a wretched ghostly survival, with no
difference between good and bad and therefore devoid of any notion of reward or punishment.

It is only progressively that we see the elaboration of a belief in the resurrection of the flesh
and a happy eternal life for the just, for Godís enemies do not live on. Even later in Danielís
prophecies it will be written that at the end of time, "several" of those who sleep in dust will
awaken, some for eternal life and others for eternal shame. The orthodox rabbi view, in its
popular form, takes as true the fact that at death the just will be rewarded by a happy time in
the heavens whereas the bad will have the right to Gehenna where they will be tormented by a

fire sixty times hotter than earthly flames! The lucky ones will have the right pass through the
diamond gates, radiant angels, rivers of milk and honey, feasts presided by God, etc. In
reality, however, the only true reward for the just is to savour the eternal vision of God.


We could hope that with the New Testament would come more details or precision
concerning our future fate. Unfortunately, Jesus did not develop this theme and was happy
just to present the orthodox vision from the Old Testament whilst specifying that at the
resurrection we will recover a transformed body, namely without the "burden of gender"
therefore allowing us to live like the Angels.

The texts do not help us find any more details and we have to address either catholic or
protestant theologians in order to help shed some light on the matter. There is a two-fold
question which needs to be answered: on Judgment Day will the bodies given be matieral and
in what form will we exist between death and this resurrection?

Such formidable questions have provoked bitter discussions between the Doctors of the
Church. It would seem that the current less didactic trend favours the idea that the incarnation
would not be material in the way that we understand the word, but rather be something
fundamentally new, adapted to the future life. At our death our soul would be immaterial and
according to past acts would either go up to heaven or down to hell. It is only at the
Resurrection that the pleasure or bodily torture would be added, for our destiny would then be
fixed forever.

Let us add to this picture the strictly Catholic notion of purgatory where our soul goes to be
purified if its sins are not beyond redemption.

As in Judaism, we find a certain popular version of a paradise with earthly pleasures or a hell
based on our perception of torture and, on the other hand, a more erudite version where the
reward is our own glorification in a communion with God and our punishment remorse and
the lack of God, which seems to concord mostly with the notion of infininte good.


There are many common points between Islam and Judeo-Christian beliefs, especially relating
to the after life. Here again, on Judgement Day, a single all powerful God attributes the
delights of Paradise to the good (Muslims) and the torture of Hell to the evil ones. Here
resurrection is perfect and complete, in a body of flesh and blood - this explains why the
notion of reward and punishment are also very materialistic. For one group, clothes of silk and
gold, shady gardens, gurgling springs, the finest food and the presence of countless beautiful
virgins (heaven is reserved exclusively for men). For the others the fires of Hell, seventy
times hotter than our flames (slightly hotter than the Jewish Hell), burning pitch, melted
sulphur and other refinements that I shall spare you.

Here again we find the same hiatus on the state of the dead person between his death and his
future resurrection. Opinions vary greatly as to this intermediate period, but the dominant idea
seems to be that the "soul" of the dead person remains in the tomb where he will have a taste
of his future through a vision of Paradise or Hell whilst awaiting reincarnation.

Some Muslim thinkers try to offer a more spiritual image of Islam by imitating their Jewish
and Christian colleagues.

At this point we shall briefly look at the religions in the Far East, although it would be better
to talk here of philosophies, rather than religions, for their beliefs are very different to those
found in the west. But can we refer to beliefs that are so different to our western ones as
religions? Would it not be better to talk of philosophies?

Western thought is based upon the importance of the individual and all that he represents in
relation to the world. His rationalism pushes him to situate the human spirit in the universe.
Eastern wisdom is, on the contrary, dominated by the idea of a totally united world in which
the individual is insignificant and dependent on the whole. It is not a case of understanding
the universe, but of being in harmony with it.

Such fundamentally-opposed concepts could only lead to deeply different religions and to
particularly unusual ideas on the after world.


Hinduism is a philosophical, moral and social system of beliefs, devoid of any doctrinal
constraints as found in our religions. It only requires of its adepts the notion of a "moral
order" in the world. In this system no act, either good or bad, is lost (law of the Karma). This
obviously implies the "transmigration" of souls. According to the quality of life lived, the
reincarnation can be more or less painful (rebirth into inferior bodies such as a dog, pig, insect
or plant). It is always possible to buy back favour, for the order of existence can be ascending
and lead progressively to eternal beatitude. Meditation and severe self-discipline are the best
assets for this.

There exists a popular form of hinduism, more inclined to imagine a more material future.
Hence notions very similar to ours of a paradise where one drinks soma at the godsí table
(which do not have the same level of importance as our god) and where one tastes all of the
bodily pleasures, and of a hell where the stay conforms in every detail with what we expect
from the eastern imagination. We should note, however, that despite everything, karmic law
dominates and these materialistic concepts are only considered as temporary stays between
two reincarnations.


Bouddha is neither a god, nor a saviour, but merely a guide indicating the way towards the
"awakening" of understanding. Buddhism distances itself from human matters for it denies
any notion of matter, spirirt or even soul. All is but an illusion, change, non-reality. There is
nothing but a karmic flow without any "me" directing it. Despite everything, this cycle can be
interrupted by moral and intellectual improvement. To understand that there is no "me" is the
key which leads to saintliness and ultimately the supreme reward : the bliss of Nirvana.

You would not be surprised to see that here again many sects have tried to conquer the masses
by using once more the statutory notion of Hell and Paradise.


We shall not go into too much detail on the religions practised in China and Japan. They are
deeply similar and are based upon the cult of the dead. In Japan, the "Kami" (spirits of the
dead ancestors who have become gods) continue to live close to the living and participate in
an invisible way in their existence. Possessing supernatural powers due to their passage
beyond the tomb, they can be good or evil depending on whether they are honoured or
neglected. In China the belief is similar but popular thought has added many gods, spirits and
demons which need to be either neutralised or made friendly. With the introduction of popular
buddhism came notions of good and evil, reward and punishment. But the Chinese are
willingly agnostic and adhere to Confuciusí saying :When one does not know what life is,
how can one experience death? Surely this is wisdom itself?


Animism is the name given to traditional religions. It replaces the derogatory term paganism,
the religion of the pagans, and groups together beliefs which share the allocation of a soul to
everything, man, animals, objects and natural phenomena. All of these entities can be
beneficial or hostile and they must be appeased by the appropriate rituals. The ancestorsí cult
thus takes on a great importance, for they are considered as still alive and capable of action.
Animism is spread throughout the world but is mainly found in Africa.

The different after worlds described here can be found, with variations, in the innumerble
sects that we could not list here. From this enormous amalgam it is possible to draw a lesson.
A common point links all religions, be they small or great : DEATH MAKES US LOSE OUR
MATERIAL BEING. Even in the cases where resurrection exists, there is at least a transitory
period where we exist in an immaterial form, and if we pass from one reincarnation to
another, there are also intermediate stages with no material state. Religions make us accept a
post-mortem state which no earthly experience can corroborate. Belief in a soul or spirit is a
pure act of faith that escapes all criticism or debate. It is more often a matter of oneís social or
cultural environment, rather than a personal choice.


Not only relgious minds have looked into what our future existence could be like after death,
should such a future exist.

Many thinkers, dissatisfied by the dogmatic affirmations made by religions, have searched
either to modify these, or to find a totally different path for investigation. A flourish of more
or less reasonable, or blatantly wild ideas were born out of this intense pondering. The most
brilliant minds from every age have added their dash of folly to this and the least that one can
say is that they are far from being in agreement. In fact, total pandemonium reigns. This
observation already means that we can state that to date no single proposal is likely to win
favour with a large public, for no one view is more credible than any of the others. As
opposed to religions where believers are in their milllions, or hundred millions, a
philosophical theory most often only commits the person who created it. The main reason for
this is that this kind of literature is usually far from being an easy read. Written by the learned
for the learned means that it has no popular audience. We are talking here about written texts
on the after world and not general philosophy where some ideas (ideologies) can mobilise the
masses (Marxism, Existentialism, etc).

The lack of rules and ceremonials also discourage massive participation. Believers need to get
together and comfort each other in a ceremony which highlights their belonging to the group.
Finally, the lack of Manicheism opposing the principles of good and evil with their
consequent rewards and punishments, badly serves a public generally avid for some
compensation for their many earthly sufferings and lack of justice.

Philosophical ideas on the after world are far too numerous to list here - it would be an
impossible task. We shall therefore content ourselves by skimming over the subject and
presenting some proposals and thoughts picked up here and there, in no particaular order.

There are two opposing concepts for those who believe in life after death. Do we keep our
personality and therefore the ability to reason, or do we melt into a supreme being (God,
Universal Soul, Absolute Being, etc.) for eternal bliss, thus losing our identity and free will?
Is this philosophical on the one hand, religious on the other, or a mixture of both?

The idea that it is possible to perfect ourselves in a future life found much support and lead to
the idea of a "tiered" afterlife. We thus progress from one superior sphere to the other towards
perfection, never attained but always accessible. For some people these stages are material
and consist of reincarnations on other stars in increasingly perfect lives. Others go further and
imagine superhuman beings which succeed us and where even God himself would be but a
stop on the way to other gods.

To be rational, some have directed their thinking to the nature of the greater spirit (for it must
be made of something), and by copying the matter have imagined that it could be made up of
pyschological atoms (monads, psychons). Immaterial, but linked to matter, these atoms would
be organised into complex groups which make up the personnality and conscience of the
individual and they would be able to survive independently of the body. What is their final
destiny? Depending on the author there can either be communion with the psychological
Great One or, on the contrary, a more individual life leading to new possibilities (paranormal
phenomena). To divide the mind up into more elementary parts does not unfortunately shed

any more light onto the real meaning of this other life. At most this idea can satisfy a certain
need for positivism.

A more rational way of considering the problem involves not isolating the individual from the
rest of society. All of the acts in a manís life influence the people he evolves with, in such a
way that he is a part of them and continues to live in them after his death. It is therefore not
the individual himself but society that survives indefinitely through successive civilizations. If
this contribution to society by man is considered as purely cultural or moral, we cannot really
talk of a future life. If, however, we can see in this contribution something real, a kind of
transfer from our spirit, we then fall back into the realm of immaterial entities.

At the end of the last century rationalists believed that thanks to spiritualism they had found
the ideal solution concerning the after world. Spiritual beings, bodiless human spirits, came to
"talk" to us via turning tables and other inanimate objects or by mediums in a trance. Surely
this was the perfect way of illustrating the paranormal? And numerous scientists witnessed
extraordinary manifestations during memorable seances.

According to the spiritist doctorine, man is made up of three elements : his physical body,
which is mortal; his vital fluid which accompanies the soul after death and allows him to act
on matter and finally his soul, which is immortal and constitutes the immaterial support to
thought. Unfortunately, although the "spirits" did their best to make contact with us, they did
not have much to say about the after world. Their descriptions are flimsy, vague, foggy,
contradictory and basically unusable. They are the ones who discredited the spirit world more
than the doctrine itself.

To end, more recently another approach to the afterlife has caused a major stir. This is called
N.D.E. (near death experiences) or, if you prefer, the study of states close to death or a
pseudo-death. We all know the facts. People who have come close to death or who have been
"clinically dead" come back to life and tell a similar tale. They see themselves on their death
bed (or on an operating table, or at the scene of their accident) and they "leave" their body and
arrive at a "tunnel" at the end of which a "being of light" awaits them. The experience stops
when they come back to earthly life and enter back into their body. The experience has
psychologically affected them deeply and they state that they have lived something which is
in no way similar to a dream.

Has a corner of the veil been lifted on the after world, or can a psychological state close to
death trigger in the dying a standard fantasy? The debate remains open. If we choose the first
version we will again have "something" able to survive outside matter and the other version is
of no relevance in a debate on the after world.

To sum up, the philosophical after world is like that of relgions : the passage from one life to
another requires a break between our physical, mortal being and an immaterial entity which
survives after it. The obstacle is unavoidable, despite whatever subtleties of imagination the

great thinkers might deploy. No strictly materialistic dotorine exists that can back up the idea
of a life after death.


It is not up to science to say if life after death is possible. This does not prevent it favouring a
doctrine which is as close as possible to our current knowledge rather than one which calls
upon new and unverifiable concepts. Science has built physics for its use - this is effective and
at present beats all other disciplines and scientists find it satisfactory. Why should science
gratuitously burden itself with an immaterial world which it cannot tell head from tail? Also,
it prefers pure materialism which simply denies any existence after death - even if many
researchers are religious, they readily admit that this is the least disturbing solution in a
strictly scientific sense.

This choice is linked to the conviction that the spirit and matter are inextricably linked and
that one is the "product" of the other. As of a certain level of complexity and organization,
matter would have the peculiarity of being conscious of its own existence. Science cannot, at
present, explain such a process or even prove its justification, but it prefers this hypothesis
which can be worked upon rather than imagine a separate existence for thought, which it
could only accept passively.

This (not official, but tacitally recognized) position, is obviously subject to criticism, but we
are not going to enter into an agrument which has been going on for centuries and go through
all of the various points involved. Once again we shall do as we have done throughout our
questioning, use that precious word IF!

IF, matter and spirit are really unseparable, what happens when we add to this the notion that
all times exist simultaneously? This is what we shall now see.

We have seen how one of the consequences of our hypothesis is that events are situated in a
fixed place in space. There is a well-determined place where we are constantly being born and
another where we endlessly die. Between the two is the meandering line of our existence
which flows endlessly as a (more or less) long river from its source to the sea. There is,
somewhere, a section of matter made up of particles which follow each other relentlessly and
which go to make up our physical "me".

However, we have just seen and accepted as a working hypothesis that this matter also carries
our mind. Thus, our mind is also present, permanently, in the same section of space. It does
not disappear at our death because our successors in time will in turn use it.

We should remember here that by "our death" we mean the death of the "slice" that we are in
relation to the "whole" which never dies (or at least not before the end of the universe). And
this is where we have to make a choice. Either we lose this slice and give up any hope of
making it to the rest of the section, or on the contrary it is the very loss of this slice which
gives us that same access. In the first case the slice has no future and will have to live with the

consolation that behind it life continues, and in the second case the story does not end with the
death of the slice and there is survival.

As we are talking about the after world, we shall obviously choose the second solution and
see how we can picture it.

We have on many occasions mentioned, and especially when dealing with quantum
mechanics, that it is necesasry to envisage the existence of "signals" travelling in the opposite
direction to normal signals, without this meaning that they went back in time. Our section is a
motorway where one can drive both ways. There is the direction birth-to-death which we
know well, for it is our memory, and the direction death-to-birth which we do not usually
have access to but which we can occasionally use in precognition (or, more systematically, in
the realm of particles). It is therefore imaginable that this two-way motorway could be the
very route by which our humble (but important to us) slice of life could once again become a
part of the whole.

We shall not assume that things happen this way, but we can reasonably state that IF there is
something after death, then it is highly probable that this is how it works.

At our death, the one-way street (a mental barrier?) disappears and we start a new existence.
This does not mean that we are going to live our life again in the other direction. Our memory
does not let us live our life "forwards". It is but a tool that our mind uses. There is no reason
why this should be any different for the memory travelling in the other direction, for this is
also but a tool. The mind does not follow the traffic in a particular direction, it goes where it
wants. The advantage after death is that one becomes a whole which can most probably have
movement both ways at once and thus benefit from increased intellectual possibilities (such as
access to the subconscious?).

The sort of survival that we have just shown conforms totally with the requirements set by
science. There is at no moment a break between the spirit and matter. The after world
imagined is as materialistic as could be hoped for. Undoubtedly, if science has felt obliged to
make a choice between all of the after worlds put forward to date, this is the one that it would

Yet if this idea satisfies logic, it does not satisfy our dreams. After all, it is not very exciting to
imainge that we are going to spend eternity contemplating our life. Luckily, we can imagine
better. If we used the image of a section of motorway, it was for a purpose. In fact, the word
section leads us to believe that we are dealing with a part of something longer : the whole
motorway. After all, our matter is part of our parents and also of our children at the moment
of conception (and particularly during pregnancy when a lot of matter is shared)?

The motorway then becomes vast. And nothing can stop us turning off towards brothers or
sisters where we share equally strong physical ties (same mother). Thus our motorway splits
into all directions and joins other motorways! Thus, whilst never leaving matter for one
moment, our mind could little by little encompass the whole of mankind (including the flora
and fauna) and at all periods in history !

At this point would we still be ourselves? I hope not! After all, we change throughout life,
depending on the people we meet or experiences that we live. Do we reason in the same way
when we are ten, twenty or fifty yearsí old? Similarly our progressions into the lives of others
would enrich us in a way that is hard to imagine. How could we not change, if we were rich
with the wisdom and experiences of the whole planet?

You might think that I am going slightly over the top here, and that this motorway image is
not a very plausible one? Yet all I am doing is rigorously applying the principle that we have
taken as the base to our reasoning. The mind is dependent on matter. Our personal experience
proves that our mind can position itself wherever it wants to in relation to the space which is
our existence. Why not widen this to cover the whole of matter?

The point that troubles us is the idea that our mind could wander on the motorways of matter
and infiltrate everywhere and even invade the brain of an ant on the premiss that it was eaten
by a chicken that we then ate (or that it was part of the animal world and that we are linked to
it by some evolutionary misshap). Nothing obliges us to think that this adventure is a journey.
We can, on the contrary, imagine that our mind stays in the section that is attributed to us. It
therefore just watches the traffic go by (the information) toing and froing from all places and
all periods of time.

Considered in this way, it already seems more reasonable. But maybe you do not want to be
reasonable? Hold on to your hats, for we are going to speed up/change up a gear.

Imagine a starry sky. Thousands of small bright points scattered in the darkness. Now imagine
that you can at once see all of the chronological realities of each of these stars. What a
wonderful spectacle! Now the sky is full of stripes of light whose thickness and brightness
varies according to their distance at the different periods. Add the sun, with a burning streak
fixed in space and the moon and planets. Now imagine that your sight widens and in one
glance you can see all of the universe. The stars are now grouped into galaxies throwing out
giant tentacles in all directions. The universe is a gargantuan sea urchin of light constantly
growing and expanding. In its middle beats a cataclysmic heart with the never-ending beat of
successive big bangs. Are you still with me?

Now go to the infinitely small. Each quark, particle, atom and molecule is one or many
strands whose length is on a scale to the universe. And each of these unbelievably fine lines
endlessly conveys signals from one end to the other of all that exists. How many particles are
there in a planet, star, galaxy or whole universe? How many signals does that make? Are you
feeling dizzy yet?

This is how the universe would look if all times exist simultaneously. Is it conceivable that
this flood of signals serves no purpose? Couldn't "someone" use all of these pieces of

Let us return to the "me" that we abandoned, busily absorbing the whole of humanity! Here he
launches into an even crazier adventure. This time the whole universe is talking to him!

He is the universe!

Georges Sommeryns

                         Brussels, april 1994


Shared By: