DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE: Ask Anything / Open Floor – October 31, 2026

MEntity: Hello to each of you. We have navigated the gauntlet of Troy's laughter to be here, now. Good day to each of you. We can begin. QUEUE IS NOW OPEN

Uma: You have said that physicists have failed to include consciousness in their equations. What, specifically, are they missing, and how should consciousness be incorporated mathematically into the fundamental laws of physics? What direction of inquiry would lead them toward that discovery?

MEntity: 

This may be difficult for us to answer within the limitations of the channel and common understanding of consciousness, but we may be able to create approximate terminology and concepts that can be understood first as symbolic and later compared to ongoing revelations in science.

First, we would suggest that what is missing from the current mathematical descriptions of reality is the intrinsic perspective of experience itself. Physics describe how energy, matter, space, and time behave, interact, and transform, but it does not yet explain why or under what conditions any of these processes should constitute an experience of existence.

From our perspective, consciousness is simply a product that appears when matter becomes sufficiently complicated. Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of existence, while the forms through which it is expressed vary enormously. For now, this is a metaphysical proposition so a mathematical theory would need to establish what measurable consequences follow from it.

We could suggest that physicists begin by examining three properties we would name Information, Integration, and Internal Perspective. Information describes the differences available within a system, while Integration describes how those differences participate in a mutually influencing whole, and Internal Perspective concerns whether that system has an experience of its own processes, rather than merely exhibiting processes that an external observer can measure.

The mathematical challenge is to establish a relationship between physical states and experiential states.

We could propose something like C = F (P, I, R) where C represents a structured conscious state, P represents the physical organization of a system, I represents its integration of information, and R represents its internal relationships, including feedback and the development of perspective over time. This is an illustration of the proposed relationships, but not a completed physical law, of course. The essential discovery would be the mathematical function that specifies how these properties correspond to actual experience.

There is also the important question of causation to be answered by scientists. If consciousness is entirely determined by physical processes, such a relationship, might explain experience without requiring changes to existing laws, but if consciousness has an independent influence on physical events, physicists would need to identify that influence mathematically and demonstrate its measurable effects. In truth, both variations are valid, but these different possibilities will require very different investigations.

Physics eventually needs to describe reality from both its external and internal aspects. The external aspect concerns what a system DOES, while the internal aspect concerns whether, and in what manner, that system EXPERIENCES what it does.

The challenge is not to simply insert consciousness into an existing equation, but to discover whether consciousness reveals a property that the equation was never designed to describe.

NEXT, LEX

Uma: So interesting, Thank you. Right now science reminds me of the blind men trying to describe the elephant—each branch describing their patch of the whole and not being able to see the big picture.

Lex Ellei: 

In a private session, you referred to one of my potential future incarnations with she/her pronouns. I was surprised at the implication that humans are still using gendered pronouns in around 2600–2750 CE.

Will you please provide a concise overview of humans’ viewpoints regarding genders and pronouns during that 2600–2750 CE time period, particularly in terms of how they differ from today’s?

Thank you!

MEntity: 

Hello to you, Lex. We would first clarify that our use of "She/Her" is a translation into terminology familiar to our students here, now, rather than an indication that the conventions of your current language have remained unchanged.

In the period between 2600 and 2750 CE, we see and know a humanity that has moved a great deal beyond the rigid associations between biological sex, gender identity, social roles, and expectations that characterize much of your present civilization.

Gender has not disappeared, but it has become far more flexible, with masculine, feminine, neutral, and various combinations of these understood as legitimate expressions of personality. Gender is generally regarded as descriptive rather than prescriptive because it is understood that Gender communicates how an individual experiences or presents themselves without automatically determining what is expected of them.

Pronouns continue to exist, included gendered forms, but their use is more varied and contextual. Some individuals maintain consistent gender identification throughout life, while others move among various expressions without this being regarded as particularly notable. Neutral forms are quite widespread, though gendered language does still remain useful and meaningful to many.

Humanity does not move toward the development of one universal culture. Some populations retain stronger gender traditions, while others place little to no emphasis on gender at all.

Gender is far less consequential to an individual's opportunities, relationships, social standing, and personal freedoms.

As for your lifetime, our use of "she" indicates a personality whose expression would be recognizable to you now as predominantly feminine. It did not imply that this personality would experience gender through the same definitions, restrictions, or cultural assumptions familiar to you today.

NEXT, Felicitas

Felicitas: Of the folklore tales or fairy tales as collected by the brothers Grimm, I have a fascination for the tale about Rumpelstiltskin. It has elements that remind of a Faustian pact and Rumpelstiltskin is a mischievous and mysterious goblin or elf-like creature with magical powers; also, there is the theme of a secret name and the power that this secrecy holds. I came across research that was done by historians and linguists and their conclusion is that many of these fairy tales are far older than was thought previously. For the tale about Rumpelstiltskin, they suggest that its origin may be as far back as 4000 years ago. I would like to know whether you can confirm that and could you provide more specific background information about the origin of the Rumpelstiltskin character and the tale and its significance?

MEntity: 

Oh it is true that the underlying tale for Rumpelstiltskin is about 4000 years old, but the character known today comes from more recent German folklore.

The tale has survived because it explores enduring human experiences involving power, desperation, obligation, identity, and the consequences of agreements made when choices seem limited.

The story explores various expressions of power, but reflects a longstanding human tendency to fear mysterious forces while willfully overlooking abuses of familiar power. As for the secret name, this represents how knowledge can change one's relationship to power.

The Faustian association is valid. Ancient stories frequently explored bargains in which immediate assistance carried devastating future obligations. Rumpelstiltskin's willingness to exchange material wealth for a living child also reflects humanity's longstanding concerns about prosperity, sacrifice, and the value of life.

We would not say Rumpelstiltskin is one specific historical supernatural being as his character combines elements of the ancient trickster, household spirits, and magical craftsmen.

Ultimately, we think the tale concerns the movement from helplessness toward recognition of choice.

NEXT, Maureen

Maureen: When I imagine humans, first on Sirius and then onwards from 6 MYA, even though I know we have changed dramatically, I still see us physiologically as we are now. Would you describe our different appearances and abilities over time and place them within the appropriate timeframe(s)? 

MEntity:

Your visualization makes sense as most fragments of humanity never incarnated through that original species in Sirius. When we were displaced and relocated, the key dna elements were spliced into local species that would have already seemed similar to a variation of primate.

Prior to the displacement, our species was a form of bipedal primate already, though quite different from the primates recognized on Earth. These bodies were much softer and more flexible with a substantial covering of hair or fur, tails, and different skeletal proportions. We have said that the species of Lemur and Sloth on your planet now would be closest to what our species looked like in Sirius.

At the 6 million year mark we use as a general start to our cycle of lives on Earth, the relocation to Earth required the development of bodies that combined characteristics of the original species with those of terrestrial organisms. The earliest successful bodies were quite primate-like with a great deal of body hair, different proportions of arms and legs, and smaller cranial structures, with less refined upright movement. There was considerable variation because the process of biological adaptation was still quite experimental in the way that it was done for us. Some bodies were physically durable but intellectually very limited, while others demonstrated great cognitive potential but could not reproduce, adapt, or live long.

6 to 3 million years ago, these early populations developed along several different lines. The bodies became much better suited to Earth's gravity, atmosphere, temperature, and available food sources. Physical differences were fairly insignificant, but development along intellectual and social paths gave rise to the first branches of human.

We could respond in far more detail to this query, but a fair answer would be that the way you have visualized humans existing on Earth has been fairly accurate to that history of bodies on Earth, with the greatest difference being the bodies as they were in Sirius.

NEXT, Connor.

Maureen: Thank you

Connor B: 

Hello again, Michael.

I have a question about you that involves some weird time shit. Please correct me if anything I am about to say in the next paragraph is wrong or based on a flawed premise.

You cycled off around 7,000 years ago only to reappear in Mesopotamia as a Causal teacher. These two events are separated by a short span of years from my perspective and a tremendous journey across planes of existence from your perspective. You had to pass through the supposedly beautiful and horrific process of reunion with Entity Mates on the Astral before moving on to the Causal. Only after deciding to teach and making arrangements with your students did you choose a point in physical time to re-insert yourselves as a teacher working through channels.

What about your Astral selves? From your perspective as a Causal Entity, they would be you in your past, but from my perspective they/you would also be 1050 Essences (and countless Personalities) living on the Astral after having recently cycled off. Shouldn’t you still also exist in the Astral of the 21st century as Entity Mates working towards reunion who have yet to progress to the Causal and ultimately circle back to Mesopotamia? If I went looking for your Astral selves after I die, would I find them?

The reverse of that question is: once this Rabbit Hole session is over, if you went looking for me and my Entity Mates as a reunited Entity on the Causal, would you find us already there?

MEntity: 

The difficulty you may have in all of this comes from applying Physical Time to planes that do not experience time in the same way. Our progression through the Astral and into the Causal was sequential in terms of experience, but our contact with students in Mesopotamia did not require us to travel backward in time. We simply engaged with a point in Physical Time that was accessible to us, particularly due to the resonance of Agreements we had formed over the many years of our incarnations.

Our Astral selves remain accessible because those experiences are not erased by evolution. However, you would not find 1,050 fragments still independently working toward reunion in your present Astral environment. You could encounter our Astral state by accessing a particular frame of experience. It would be us as we were, rather than another version of us continuing separately. The reverse is also possible. We can perceive our Entity in the states of reunion that you have not yet experienced, including a potential Causal existence. However, these are not necessarily fixed outcomes in every detail because your choices still contribute to how that evolution unfolds. We know this is difficult to comprehend within the stream of time, but it may be helpful to think of these points in time as MEMORY or IMAGINATION, depending on the "direction" from which we are "looking." There are variations in memory that do not change the experience that was had when that moment was first experienced, and imagination can see variations that may not be noticeable once that moment has arrived. Regardless, it is all a part of the spectrum of our experiences.

The important principle here is that all of time can be accessible without all experiences being completed from every perspective. Simultaneity does not eliminate sequence. It simply means that sequence is a function of how consciousness experiences its evolution, rather than an absolute restriction upon existence.

NEXT, final question – PETRA

Petra ~: October 31st 2026 Halloween Rabbit Hole! Hello Michael via Troy! I'd like You to tell me a joke?

MEntity: 

A STUDENT ONCE ASKED US, "Michael, do you ever get tired of answering the same questions over and over again?"

WE REPLIED, "No. We have answered that question 47,312 times."

THE STUDENT, "Really?"

WE REPLIED, "Make that 47,313."

Maureen: LOL!

Ann H: Hahahaha

MEntity: We will conclude here for today. Good day to each of you. Goodbye, for now.