<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Rupert Sheldrake</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:
To:</td><td>Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:54 PM
Jeffrey E.</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Re: fields</td></tr></table>

Dear =effrey,

Thanks for the graph. Yes, =ts a fairly general shape, also seen in species frequencies etc. Still =ot sure how it might apply to morphic resonance. We would probably need =o discuss this when we meet in person.

I agree there are deep problems with, or aspects =f probability.

I seem to =ake a much sharper distinction than you do between coin flipping type probabilities and the probability fields of self-organising systems, like the leaves of oak trees. I think there's an inherent =ifference between systems organised by external forces and by internal organising principles. The coin is =oved entirely by external forces, whereas the developing leaf shapes itself, as does a =oap bubble, although in the soap bubble case surface tension can probably =xplain the form quite adequately. =/span>Simple physical explanations like surface tension fail when it comes to leaves although D'Arcy Thompson tried to extend them into the biological =ealm.

We are off for Canada tomorrow and away for 2 =onths on a remote island in BC. I =ope still to be in email contact most of the time. =/span>

Rupert

On 12 Jul 2016, at 16:47, jeffrey E. =rote:

<Screen Shot 2016-07-12 at =1.46.52 AM.png>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rupert Sheldrake <mailto:rsheldrake@clara.co.uk> > =rote:

## Dear =effrey,

They could be probability fields =hemselves, you're right. When I first put forward 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. =/span>The problem is that when you propose this idea to people they just can't grasp the idea of free-floating =robability fields. They ask "What are they made of?" It's true that it's also hard to answer the question of what are quantum probability fields made of. =/span>

But there's a problem with trying to force =11 natural phenomena into the same shape of distribution that's come =efore. First of all, as with my own hypothesis, there's the problem of creativity: What about the first one? And secondly some probabilities are passive in the sense that they describe events that =ust happen, like coin tossing. Others are probability fields associated with self-organising systems, like =eveloping plants. One kind of probability depends on external forces, the other on internal organisational =rinciples. Morphic resonance only applied to the =atter.

## Dear =effrey, (cont.)

Best

## Rupert

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

why would =hey influence rather than actually just be a probability field =hemselves. . it also might be =un to think of " luck" as a morphic field = I think a strong argument can be made that the =ower laws zipfs pareto are the proofs of =span>morphic fields. . forcing all natural =span>phenomoma into the same shape of distribution that has come =efore it its very very elegant. =nd as good a theory as any scientist can propose.

On Mon, Jul 11, =016 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 pseudo force would push =omeone else towards the average. . =nd yes - a few times depak and i roared with =aughter.

## Rupert (cont.)

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Rupert Sheldrake =span <mailto:rsheldrake@clara.co.uk> > =rote:

dir="ltr">

and can be hilarious =oo.

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

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 =y return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this =ommunication and all copies thereof,

## Rupert (cont.)

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 =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

4