<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Rupert Sheldrake</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:
To:</td><td>Tuesday, July 12, 2016 1:42 PM
Jeffrey E.</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Re: fields</td></tr></table>

Dear =effrey,

They could be =robability fields themselves, you're right. When I first put =orward this hypothesis I corresponded with Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, =bout it and he thought morphic fields sounded like what he called propensity =ields, a very similar concept to your probability fields. The problem is that when you =ropose this idea to people they just can't grasp the idea of free-floating =robability fields. They ask "What =re they made of?" It's true that =t's also hard to answer the question of what are quantum probability fields made of.

But there's a problem with trying to force all =atural phenomena into the same shape of distribution that's come before. First of all, as with my own =ypothesis, there's the problem of creativity: What about the first one? And =econdly some probabilities are passive in the sense that they describe events that =ust happen, like coin tossing. =/span>Others are probability fields associated with self-organising systems, like =eveloping plants. One kind of =robability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational =rinciples. Morphic resonance only =pplied to the latter.

Best

Rupert

On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, jeffrey E. =rote:

why would they influence rather =han actually just be a probability field themselves. = it also might be fun to =hink of " luck" as a morphic field . I think a =trong argument can be made that the power laws zipfs =areto are the proofs of morphic fields. . forcing all =atural phenomoma into the same shape of distribution that has =ome before it its very very =legant. and as good a theory as any scientist can propose. =br>

On =on, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Rupert Sheldrake < > =rote:

Dear Jeffrey,

Yes, = think Brian Josephson is indeed rather scattered.

I don't think =eepak is interested in deep theoretical issues so I don't think you'll succeed in moving him towards the =tudy of probabilities. But I agree with you that it would be better if he stayed away from quantum phenomena which he =oesn't know much about and which in relation to medicine and consciousness seem =o me to create a cloud of scientific-sounding rhetoric which obscures rather =han illuminates the problems.

I'm all for the idea of =ttractors, but I don't think mathematically so find it hard to grasp probability =rguments. Although I think morphic fields are =robability structures and work by influencing probabilities. =/span>

We leave for a remote island in British =olumbia on Wednesday and I'll be away for about 2 months. But still in email contact most of the time. =/span>

Rupert

On 9 Jul 2016, at 10:53, jeffrey E. =rote:

he pointed me =o brian Josephson, seems =cattered.? view? I m trying to convince depak =o move in the realm and study of probabilities and stay away from =uantum phenomena. . I think natures distributions =ushing elements to be average , describes many processes. = it appears that morphing all local faces into one =verage ) appears to be beautiful. . if things are =istributed on a bell live or normal curve, just looking at =he distribution could lead one to think there is a force pushing toward =he middle. maybe gravity is just =hat, . probability of all things being equally =istributed. appearing as a pseudo force = ( like centrifugal force ). the =entral limit theorem might answer many mysteries. . =erivation of the power laws for example. zipf, =span>pareto. . if the distribtuions are =he attractors. having even a distribution of esoteric =raits like happinesss could lead one to belive that if the =istribution wants to stay constant. as one point on the =urve ( the person) if they become happier, the pseufo force would push =omeone else towards the average. . =nd yes - a few times depak and i roared with =aughter.

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Rupert Sheldrake =span dir="ltr">< <mailto: > =rote:

Glad to hear about your meeting. Deepak =s good company, has a broad vision, and can

be hilarious =oo.

Rupert

On 8 Jul 2016, at =1:18, jeffrey E. wrote:

depak chopra was here this morning, a great fan of =ours

please =ote

The information contained in this communication =s confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute =nside information, and is intended only for the use of the =ddressee. It is the property of JEE

Unauthorized use, disclosure =r copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly =rohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received =his communication in error, please notify us immediately =y return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this =ommunication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. =opyright -all rights reserved

please =ote

The information contained in this communication =s confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute =nside information, and is intended only for the use of the =ddressee. It is the property of JEE

Unauthorized use, disclosure =r copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly =rohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received =his communication in error, please notify us immediately 9 return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this =ommunication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. =opyright -all rights reserved

please =ote

The information contained in this communication =s confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute =nside information, and is intended only for the use of the =ddressee. It is the property of JEE

Unauthorized use, disclosure =r copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly =rohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received =his communication in error, please notify us immediately 9 return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this =ommunication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. =opyright -all rights reserved