Aliens from alternate realities: in-forming the unformed

If our experience (material or otherwise) is shaped by our consciousness, then it is from the flotsam and jetsam of our consciousness that our experiences are constructed. All of our mental concepts are constructed, reposited or spun from the mental bits of our past experiences. All "new" knowledge generates from this primal pool of mental raw material – the past. It becomes the distortion lens of our present.

When the apparitions of Fatima appeared to the children, they never described the apparition as the "Virgin Mary", they said she was "a lady in white". Where did the idea of the Virgin come from? It came from the church. THEY are the ones who called it the blessed virgin. The apparition from an alternate reality became contaminated with the dross of applied human mental concepts. Whatever objective reality it may have had became smeared with the fuzziness of subjective projections. It lost its primal purity to the intrusion of human labeling and belief.

Nearly everything that we experience becomes contaminated with our subjective-ness in this manner. There is no ultimate "objective" reality that we can interpret except through the narrow mail-slot of our individual subjective conscious beliefs. All is subjective and open to personal interpretation since ALL is apprehended subjectively. Regardless of our desire to make things "objective", we invariably "realize" them according to our particular tastes, past knowledge, prejudices or inclinations. We cannot avoid contaminating them, nay in-forming them, in accordance with the contents of our consciousness.

Who is to say that Adamski's handsome Venusian, Orthon, isn't the same thing as Whitley Strieber's terrifying greys? Strieber only interpreted them as terrifying precisely because his whole mental gestalt was geared toward terror. He had made a quite successful living creating phantom terrors on the pages of his books prior to his terrifying experiences.

If such subjectivity is unavoidable, then we may actually choose for Orthon, or terrifying greys - all according to our personal tastes and the conditions of our consciousness.

I recognize that there are beings from alternate realities. But aliens don't come from alternate realities, they are projections from the minds of people who encounter aliens. They are only the particular clothing liminal beings dress themselves in for the benefit of those apprehending them.

This is why I think so many refer to aliens as "shape shifters". It is not that they necessarily willfully change shapes: it is because their shapes must be realized from the conscious in-formation supplied by the person or persons observing them. They may not have primal shapes themselves. They construct those forms for the benefit of our apprehension. They clothe themselves in the trappings of our mindstuff. Look at the unique airships from 1896-97, for instance.

I am not saying that such beings are not volitional, or do not have an existence independent from us. I am saying that they are not material and so, must enter our material sensory experience as synthetic constructs expressed from the building blocks of our subjective mindstuff.

This is exactly the way a quantum particle disappears and reappears while on its trajectory path. It dissolves and reforms before our eyes as it moves in and out of our material reality. It must be formed and reformed every nanosecond because its reality is so temporary and instantaneous that it must constantly re-generate itself from the mindstuff of our consciousness. Without our apprehending it, it would have no "reality" at all - at least not in our reality.

Could this be where aliens come from?

Mike Good wrote:

Whatever objective reality it may have had became smeared with the fuzziness of subjective projections. It lost its primal purity to the intrusion of human labeling and belief.


Could this be where aliens come from?

Interesting dilemma

Nice post. I agree with most of what you are saying, however I don't believe our perception of the beings is entirely determined by our pre-conceived notions or expectations, though it is certainly influenced by them. I think the beings themselves have the ability to change their appearance to match the cultural beliefs of the experiencers. Their craft (or at least some of them) also can shapeshift, appearing as whatever it is they want us to see. By the way, the apparition at Fatima did not call herself the Virgin Mary, but she did identify herself as the "Lady of the Rosary" which is pretty much the same thing. I believe that the entities behind the Fatima apparition were catering to the belief system of the observers, and I believe this is generally what they do.

May i ask guys if any of you have ever seen , or think you have seen , what you would call an alien being ?

Good post Mike .

FW .

manfrommagonia wrote:

Nice post.

Thanks!!

manfrommagonia wrote:

I agree with most of what you are saying, however I don't believe our perception of the beings is entirely determined by our pre-conceived notions or expectations, though it is certainly influenced by them. I think the beings themselves have the ability to change their appearance to match the cultural beliefs of the experiencers.

I fail to see how what you have said here (in bold type) differs much from my statement quoted from my first posting:

"It is not that they necessarily willfully change shapes: it is because their shapes must be realized from the conscious in-formation supplied by the person or persons observing them. They may not have primal shapes themselves. They construct those forms for the benefit of our apprehension. They clothe themselves in the trappings of our mindstuff."

But I do agree with your use of the word "influenced". Perhaps I overstated my case. It may be that they use our collective consciousness as a source for their eye candy (strictly for our benefit), as opposed to our individual personal consciousness - and that they throw in a little from their own imaginations too.

And one more thing, just to be clear: This is just a working theory on how beings from another dimensional construct may interact with us. This does not preclude the idea that certain types of beings may be material and corporeal just like us.

manfrommagonia wrote:

Their craft (or at least some of them) also can shapeshift, appearing as whatever it is they want us to see. By the way, the apparition at Fatima did not call herself the Virgin Mary, but she did identify herself as the "Lady of the Rosary" which is pretty much the same thing. I believe that the entities behind the Fatima apparition were catering to the belief system of the observers, and I believe this is generally what they do.

Which is pretty much what i said as well.

free wheel wrote:

May i ask guys if any of you have ever seen , or think you have seen , what you would call an alien being ?

Good post Mike .

FW .

Thanks FW!

In answer to your question: how do I answer that?

I don't know would be the best I could do. Consciously, no, definitely not. But there are those things that came up from my subconscious during regressive hypnosis. And my sister saw grays in my house, consciously, when she was staying with me years ago.

Here is a pertinent question for you: are the things you see with your eyes "real"?

Science tends to think so. But I think science is full of crap. I think our cultural use of the term "real" is a sort of religious superstition. The Hindus have a better way of looking at it when they refer to our material world as "The Maya", the world of illusion.

Cheers!!

Mike

Quote :

I don't know would be the best I could do. Consciously, no, definitely not. But there are those things that came up from my subconscious during regressive hypnosis. And my sister saw grays in my house, consciously, when she was staying with me years ago.

Here is a pertinent question for you: are the things you see with your eyes "real"?

Science tends to think so. But I think science is full of crap. I think our cultural use of the term "real" is a sort of religious superstition. The Hindus have a better way of looking at it when they refer to our material world as "The Maya", the world of illusion.

Cheers!!

Mike

Great question Mike , and indeed a pertinent one !
My understanding is that everything is real , illusion or not .Therefore my answer to your question would be yes !


Cheers Mike . Looking forward to your next twist .

FW .

onlychild wrote:

free wheel wrote:

May i ask guys if any of you have ever seen , or think you have seen , what you would call an alien being ?

First was in 1955, almost 40 years before I read identical stories. Lit up bedroom, followed by an entrance of about 5 "small" and "thin" beings. Was not light enough to make out facial features. Seemed to be stereotypical greys, however ...

... in 1997 I was shocked awake at least 3 times in a row by the sound of pots banging / moving together in the kitchen. I final had enough, jumped out of bed (thought it was the kids), opened the door only to stare into a dark kitchen. The only light was coming in the window in front of me to my left in the kitchen. I thought it was moonlight and didn't give it any mind. Suddenly, from that window, came a short - someone - with a larger than normal head, but very human features, not stereotypical grey features at all. He walked right across the floor in front of me, and I was going to go out and follow him, but wasn't dressed. By the time I got pants on he was gone.

So - maybe what I saw in 1955 was the same?

It is only in later life that i have been able to connect past "odd" experiences with more recent revelations . Maybe what you experienced in 1955 was the same thing . Makes sense to me in light of my own experience .

Interesting that you chose not to follow the "being " because you were not dressed . I once chose not to follow because i was scared !

How do you feel about your contact experience Onlychild ? What feelings were you left with ? Did the symbol emerge from within your experience or was the symbol discovered as a result of the journey you embarked on as a result of your experience ?


Lol , or neither !


All the best .

FW .

Mike, perhaps I was only reiterating what you said, but putting it in different words. Hopefully in doing so, I have clarified certain points.
Now I would like to address this statement of yours:
"Here is a pertinent question for you: are the things you see with your eyes "real"?
Science tends to think so. But I think science is full of crap. "

I would not make such a blanket statement as to say that science is full of crap. Science has given us a tremendous amount of knowledge about the physical world i.e, the universe, and is now offering tantalizing evidence for parallel universes. Quantum physics recognizes the illusory nature of our reality. I would say that all we see with our eyes is an illusion, yet it is also real. I see no contradiction with that statement. As FW wrote, "My understanding is that everything is real , illusion or not."
As to FW's question about whether I have seen anything that I would call an alien being, I'm still not sure if the beings I saw as a young child were real, just a dream, or somehow both real and a dream. Their faces looked like the face on the cover of Whitley Strieber's "Communion" which didn't come out until a couple of decades after my "dream." If was only a dream it was certainly the most vivid dream I've ever had, not to mention, the scariest

manfrommagonia wrote:

Mike, perhaps I was only reiterating what you said, but putting it in different words. Hopefully in doing so, I have clarified certain points.
Now I would like to address this statement of yours:
"Here is a pertinent question for you: are the things you see with your eyes "real"?
Science tends to think so. But I think science is full of crap. "

I would not make such a blanket statement as to say that science is full of crap. Science has given us a tremendous amount of knowledge about the physical world i.e, the universe, and is now offering tantalizing evidence for parallel universes. Quantum physics recognizes the illusory nature of our reality. I would say that all we see with our eyes is an illusion, yet it is also real. I see no contradiction with that statement. As FW wrote, "My understanding is that everything is real , illusion or not."
As to FW's question about whether I have seen anything that I would call an alien being, I'm still not sure if the beings I saw as a young child were real, just a dream, or somehow both real and a dream. Their faces looked like the face on the cover of Whitley Strieber's "Communion" which didn't come out until a couple of decades after my "dream." If was only a dream it was certainly the most vivid dream I've ever had, not to mention, the scariest

manfrommagonia,

Thanks!

Okay, maybe saying science is full of crap is over the top. I agree that much understanding is to be had from science. And much delusion too. The delusion is what I was referring to.

It seems we are in a semantic misunderstanding here. As you say, quantum physics points up some interesting paradoxes. It is the illusory nature of material reality that science at large has not fully come to terms with. Much of "scientific" thought devolves from the idea that only the "reality" we detect with our senses is "real". Quantum physics show that the notion of matter being "real", in the materialist sense, is more of a popular superstition than an actuality.

All matter, the primary object of our sensory perceptions, is little more than vibrating energy. Matter is not solid in a materialist sense. It is tangible to our senses but ultimately it is just a vibration. Matter is not solid even though our senses tell us otherwise. So clearly there is something going on here that is more profound, yet more subtle than the common conception that we live in a material universe and that whatever is not matter is immaterial.

Semantics again. Notice that the word immaterial has a dual meaning: it means that something is not made of matter. It also means that something that is not matter is irrelevant. That cannot be true because matter is, strictly speaking, not real. There is a lot more going on here than conventional science recognizes or assumes.

It is my belief that science makes the mistake of trying to put the expansiveness of the universe into ever smaller reductionist boxes. Quantum physics is the key. Why do you suppose it is that so many of our great quantum physicists eventually became mystics? I think it is because once you have followed matter out to its end, all that is left is vibrating energy and consciousness. And energy seems to be shaped by consciousness. It is only our consciousness and energy (and its potential) that seem persistent: i.e. "real". Matter is just a passing phase.

This completely flies in the face of scientific notions of objectivity and a consistent discreet external universe. Objectivity and the presumably external universe are two of the pillars of scientific method. Both are illusory.

When science at large begins to come to grips with these false assumptions, then I will no longer have reason to say it is full of crap. Then they will be on the same page as the great Buddhist sages and the ancient metaphysical teachings of the east that say we create our reality with our attention and that it is not something external to us - in fact, it IS us. I think it is kind of cool that physicists like Schrodinger and Bohm say pretty much the same thing. Too bad they are still in an exclusive minority.

So that is my explanation.

Cheers!!

Mike

Mike,
Excellent! Very well said. I would like to modify the statement that science is full of crap and say instead that many scientists are full of crap. Seems that you are somewhat knowledgeable concerning quantum physics, a subject that I was really into when I was in my 20s and 30s. The one book that blew me away the most was "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert, which I read back in 1985. Here is a quote from page 227 in which he says that the Alain Aspect experiment proves that "....our phenomenally local world is in actuality supported by an invisible reality which is unmeditated, unmitigated, and faster than light."
Yes, it is rather interesting that quantum physicists have pretty much come to the same conclusions as the mystics. And what I find rather compelling is that mystics of every culture, though separated widely by geography and chronology, have pretty much all said the same thing.
In your post you pointed out that matter is just a vibration. Yeah, I agree, but a vibration of what? A vibration of the quantum probably field? A vibration of the One-and-Only Consciousness that really exists and we are all a part of? What is matter? What is energy? What is time? What is consciousness? Who really knows?

manfrommagonia wrote:

Mike,
Yes, it is rather interesting that quantum physicists have pretty much come to the same conclusions as the mystics. And what I find rather compelling is that mystics of every culture, though separated widely by geography and chronology, have pretty much all said the same thing.
In your post you pointed out that matter is just a vibration. Yeah, I agree, but a vibration of what? A vibration of the quantum probably field? A vibration of the One-and-Only Consciousness that really exists and we are all a part of? What is matter? What is energy? What is time? What is consciousness? Who really knows?

Thanks Mannfrommagonia.

What is it all? What does it all mean? Who really knows?

Well, when you begin to ask these questions you are no longer talking science but philosophy and mysticism. And ultimately, these must all be part of the same continuum, the singularity that is consciousness and its expressed creation - reality.

Spirituality and science, in the final analysis, are philosophies after the same goal: understanding. The false duality set up by science and religion only muddy the waters of understanding. When science catches up with people like Bohm and Shrodinger, then science will be religion and religion, science.

And my feeling is, it is okay not to know the answers. As long as there is a decent thread of understanding, then we can move forward in this amazing creation we are creating. The only reason I have any understanding of it at all is because I learned from the mystics first. Quantum physics just happened to be the science that corroborated what I already understood.

And I think that is pretty darn cool!

Cheers!!

Mike

All of this is very interesting and some people may be wondering how this discussion relates to UFOs and aliens. Just thought I'd say that I think this discussion is very relevant to UFOs and aliens, because I believe they are not extraterrestrials (at least not in the usual sense of the word) but are interdimensional travellers. They have the ability to enter our reality and even alter the space-time continuum. They can pass through solid objects. Their craft can seemingly vanish into thin air like a Cheshire Cat, yet at the same time, they are solid objects that can be tracked on radar and create indentations on the ground where they land, as well as cause other physical effects.

Awesome post.

As I was reading, i couldn't help but think of the German "Kobolds." Little guys, sort of like a hobgoblin or something. They could change how they appeared to humans - even in the guise of an inanimate object!

Thanks Wilhelm!

manfrommagonia wrote:

All of this is very interesting and some people may be wondering how this discussion relates to UFOs and aliens.

Well, of course it is pertinent. Most of my writing is about consciousness. And since consciousness is the currency of the universe, it is pertinent to everything.

This may be an unpopular declaration to some. But that is their problem, not mine.

manfrommagonia wrote:

Just thought I'd say that I think this discussion is very relevant to UFOs and aliens, because I believe they are not extraterrestrials (at least not in the usual sense of the word) but are interdimensional travellers. They have the ability to enter our reality and even alter the space-time continuum. They can pass through solid objects. Their craft can seemingly vanish into thin air like a Cheshire Cat, yet at the same time, they are solid objects that can be tracked on radar and create indentations on the ground where they land, as well as cause other physical effects.

Thanks. My thoughts precisely.

Some of them may actually be space explorers from Zeta Reticuli. But that is a very limited vision of the myriad of possibilities. I suspect that our understanding, ultimately, will not be fully served by such a narrow point of view.

Cheers!!

Mike

[i]My favorite alien scientist (the one with the japanese name)
stated that there were 18 diffrent dimension, math didn't work out
so he changed it to 19 and the math then worked.
Hawkins Stated that he had been wrong all of these years.
his state ments of alternating universes connected at the black holes were in error.
Now every one needs to rethink them.
That people (as a general rule) dislike things that they don't comprehend. So it is far
easier for them to see a lady in white. The aliens don't need to shape shift.
All they need to do is project and the person will see what they expect.
By the way please for give my bad spelling and grammer.
When one sees a light in the sky it becomes what ever they precive.
As a "proof" of that argument.
Let me remind you of the video taken at a jungle hole in the ground.
When they revuied the tape they noticed a cork screw flight between them
and the camera.
They called it a ufo.
I call it an insect (alabet a fast one)
I do not believe that our visitors are really aliens from other dimensions.
I do believe that they are us from another time (far distant future)
when our dregs of advance civilation come back to improve thier dna.
That which was lost must be recovered.
Our dna and gene pool would not be of intrest to aliens.
Except for a petting zoo (maybe) You know to improve the breed.
Yet your statment does have meret.
The curosity of the biengs can not be discounted.
Would you know one if you met him/her/it?

free wheel wrote:

May i ask guys if any of you have ever seen , or think you have seen , what you would call an alien being ?

Good post Mike .

FW .

just some mexicans n russians [does that count?]

The only way I could recognise one is if he looked like something off of mib.

If some little gray guy in a black suit n sun glasses wonders up, then I might ask.

I remain confused
Davefair

Quote :

That people (as a general rule) dislike things that they don't comprehend. So it is far
easier for them to see a lady in white. The aliens don't need to shape shift.
All they need to do is project and the person will see what they expect.
By the way please for give my bad spelling and grammer.
When one sees a light in the sky it becomes what ever they precive.

I understand your point Davefair but this doesn't explain why myself and a few others , on different occasions and at different locations ,have witnessed the same thing ? I'm not talking about UFO's here , i am referring to what we may call "alien beings " for wan't of a better word , time travellers , off planet entities or dimensional beings . Whatever they are ? But not the classic Grey type which i understand probably eveyone has a preconceived idea of their supposed appearance .

FW .

Actually,
I am a believer. What I saw I kept close to my chest for an awfully long time. At 64 I could care less if I'm now labeled a nutcase. The sightings started at an early age. They have continued for an ever increasing number of years. HHHmmm! make that a decreasing number of years.
I was military for an awfully long time. Some things that I saw were frankly unbelievable. They will never be spoken of. Seeing the shuttle while lying in the desert had 135 witness. Seeing what flew above the mountain range was only seen by those with n.v.g.. No more then five of six people. If you take ambient light and magnify it by ten thousand. You see my point? That I can believe in. That you had something ocour
that I can believe (this takes your voracity as a gimmie).
If in the course of duty I saw some thing that was later explained to my satisfaction. That to is a gimmie.
That I was a jungle expert and saw more critters that I had no name for is a gimmie for you.
When you lay in ambush, waiting for the right people to come by, you see a whole lot more.
When you don't move they come out of hidding and carry on.
In the desert that holds true to, just not as many of them.
Have you ever hunted scorpins at nite? I use a black light, because they florce, a kind of glowning blue.
The point is that all experiences are different. If you see something blot out the stars, apparently large and low to the ground. What you ask is what the hell was that. When your told you didn't see any thing. You agree and carry on.

Some times I loose my way.

Davefair

free wheel wrote:

May i ask guys if any of you have ever seen , or think you have seen , what you would call an alien being ?

Good post Mike .

FW .

In answer to your question; Yes.
I and the person closest to me have had numerous experiences and encounters with aliens,some were rather unobjectionable -- but the remainder were ones we will do everything in our ability to never experience again.
We do not indulge in drugs other than ordinary generic 'tylenol' (acetominophen) as we have no interest in exposing ourselves to substances that might dull our alertness and awareness.Our drinking is occasional and light at most.We pay good attention to our diets and fitness for the sake of getting every advantage we can get in avoiding repeats of the aforementioned encounters/experiences...we choose not to be 'sitting ducks'.
The person I refer to above had experiences alone (as did I) prior to our meeting and our having shared experiences,which is a point regarding our lives we find disturbing to a high degree as our individual experiences while different in nature and occuring at different times occured at times close together and had many similarities impossible to ignore.

Blackwinter

From Wikipedia..
This article is about the sprite from Germanic folklore. For other uses, see Kobold (disambiguation).
Kobold
The kobold Heinzelmann
Grouping Mythological creature
Fairy
Sprite
Country Germany

The kobold (or kobolt) is a sprite stemming from Germanic mythology and surviving into modern times in German folklore. Although usually invisible, a kobold can materialise in the form of an animal, fire, a human being, and a mundane object. The most common depictions of kobolds show them as humanlike figures the size of small children. Kobolds who live in human homes wear the clothing of peasants; those who live in mines are hunched and ugly; and kobolds who live on ships smoke pipes and wear sailor clothing.

Legends tell of three major types of kobolds. Most commonly, the creatures are house spirits of ambivalent nature; while they sometimes perform domestic chores, they play malicious tricks if insulted or neglected. Famous kobolds of this type include King Goldemar, Heinzelmann, Hödekin. In some regions, kobolds are known by local names, such as the Galgenmännlein of southern Germany and the Heinzelmännchen of Cologne. Another type of kobold haunts underground places, such as mines. The name of the element cobalt comes from the creature's name, because medieval miners blamed the sprite for the poisonous and troublesome nature of the typical arsenical ores of this metal (cobaltite and smaltite) which polluted other mined elements. A third kind of kobold, the Klabautermann, lives aboard ships and helps sailors.

Kobold beliefs are evidence of the survival of pagan customs after the Christianisation of Germany. Belief in kobolds dates to at least the 13th century, when German peasants carved kobold effigies for their homes. Such pagan practices may have derived from beliefs in the mischievous kobalos of ancient Greece, the household lares and penates of ancient Rome, or native German beliefs in a similar room spirits called kofewalt (whose name is a possible rootword of the modern kobold). Kobold beliefs mirror legends of similar creatures in other regions of Europe, and scholars have argued that the names of creatures such as goblins and kabouters derive from the same roots as kobold. This may indicate a common origin for these creatures, or it may represent cultural borrowings and influences of European peoples upon one another. Similarly, subterranean kobolds may share their origins with creatures such as gnomes and dwarves and the aquatic Klabautermann with similar water spirits.

Scientists use a method, the method requires that an experiment be repeated for results to be taken seriously- not just random chance.
This is great, if all reality plays by the same rules...
it probably doesn't.
Remember the Ohio State signal- the "wow" signal
it is dismissed, because it was not repeated.

Science is great because it grows as knowledge grows, when someone stifles it, it becomes a tool of the powerful, much like the priesthood in most cultures.
Reality has some rules, but these rules and our understanding of them, changes.

Thanks Jackgbowman and Onlychild. I am surprised to see this thread rising again from the dead. But I also think that it gets down the the crux of the mystery of conscious experience.

As OC says, "The idea is we take one part good data and mix it with one part BS guesswork, stir in your head - and there you go ... an answer that is half night and day."

I think that about covers it. The story of the "kobolds" is interesting and I think instructive. I am presently reading Jacques Vallee's latest book, "Wonders in the Sky", wherein he catalogs a great many sightings which he associates with our present day "UFO" phenomenon.

What i find striking is not just the many similarities many of these stories have to modern UFO sightings, but also the dissimilarities. In this sense, it is like the Kobolds, familiar but different enough to make us wonder. What is going on here?

Less "modern" and "rational" people almost uniformly believe in alternate realities that, at times, interact with our own. To them, the fuzzy world of magic and mystery is part and parcel of our own. They do not demand that it be "repeatable" or "prove" itself to us. They simply accept it. In this sense, the scientific method is divorced from a certain segment of our human experience.

Experience is real, even if misinterpreted. It is the corporeal that is temporary and ephemeral - a passing craze. There is a lot more going on here than our presumably "real" world. It pays to consider that our present cultural belief systems are not all they are cracked up to be. I am always amused by the concept of ancient maps that, once you get to the edge of them, indicate that "here be monsters and dragons".

Yes Virginia, it is true. It is only science that fails to accept this wobbly notion. Absolutism is an affliction of the mind. The fuzzy world of the unformed and the partially formed is as "real" as matter. The immaterial is NOT immaterial!

When rationalists wrap their brains around that concept, then the worlds of magic and wonder will return to the realm of human experience. Well actually, they never left. Rationalism simply denied them. And like any good trickster meme, magic and wonder keep reminding us of their half-formed presence.....

Hello All,

What it really is, is this:

You, the World, the Galaxy, the Universe, and everything in it and beyond are all a fabrication of my will, created by me for my own pleasure and edification. I am a multidimentional being that can live many lives at once without the barriers of locale or time. All my projected lives communicate in the dream state with each other for knowledge pertaining to each other's existence.

Other than that they know not of each other. I've created these various realities in order to experience all that I need to gain the next evolutionary plane. That being the freedom and reward of attaining a true and eternal state of pure energy. Of course, when I arrive at that level of existence all of you will fade away along with everything else material.

Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

Seriously though, Matter, should anyone wish to know. is a state of coalesced energy. Too much accumulation of that matter will overload the system and heat is generated (Earth's core). For stars, they collapse as they burn up fuel which then generates more heat for the fusion process and repeats until the pressure from the energy created becomes insufficient to resist the pull of gravity and the subsequent complete collapse then supernovas. What can remain is a number of different things but one in a Black Hole. Simple as that.

And since heat and energy go along with heat and light (electromagnetic spectrum) one can assume that a Black Hole is a very cold place possessing almost no energy at all. A fact that is true. A large Black Hole is, so far, THEE coldest place in the Universe. It all makes great sense to me. Especially the energy part. And lack thereof. Science is the collection and study of processes. For the sake of order, even though the elements that make up the fabric of existence are in a random state. The math at that quantum level can only predict probabilities. All other math can predict "real" events.

The goal of getting a theory to connect the two equations has resulted in the supersymmetry of string theory. Supposedly that where all the vibration lies. The aspect I find curious, AND that is unacceptable to science, is this:

When one combines the math from Quantum Mechanics with that of General Relativity (micro with macro) the answer is INFINITY. Imagine that! That's why the "Theory Of Everything" (TOE) is currently String Theory. I don't know how ghosts fit into it.