My purpose in writing this is to clarify some thoughts I have been having recently related to the mechanisms of creation, natural and human, and the relationships between these two kinds of creation. I intend this to be an extension to a recent publication What’s Done Is Not Necessarily Done Yet and to my treatise On Being and Creation.
One way to get through life is to take the view “Shit happens. All that we can do is make the best of it.” “Shit” here could range from the big bang itself to the formation of the solar system to climate change to a tree falling through my roof to my kitchen light switch stopping working to my wife complaining about dirty dishes left on the table. That view suggests I not wonder about unknown causation of unexpected events and focus in each case on what I can do about the situation that is immediately presented to me. This is the strategy followed by almost all biological species besides Homo Sapiens in their conscious behavior, and that followed by most people in much of their conscious behavior. As such, it is not at all a bad view. Take the dirty dishes to the sink, rinse them and put them in the dishwasher!
Biological species intelligence
Before proceeding further, I would like to point out that biological species are much smarter than that in their evolutionary behavior. They anticipate various kinds of “shit” that can happen and have contingency behaviors and “plans” for executing them they can fall back on. Plants, for example, can have contingent growth strategies that are pursued in cases of draught, shade encroachment, climate heat and cold stresses, and various kinds of insect attacks. They have a number of strategies they can draw on for competing with plants of other species. Heavy stresses on animal cells kicks the generation of transposable DNA into higher gear facilitating new mutated combinations leading to species evolution. These responses are all built-in and not mediated by brains or nervous systems. We like to think intelligence is predicated on our having big brains and signal processing that takes place at synaptic junctions between neurons. But that is basically just a recent prejudice of our species. A Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of intelligence is “1a: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.” Virtually all biological species are highly intelligent in this respect in the interests of their survival. And it is not mediated by brains.
Pursuant to this, I am introducing a new theme in these discussions of IRC. This is a conjecture that biological species also participate in reality creation as do we humans, through generation of quantum field perturbations corresponding to their biological drives for survival and possibly mediated by microtubules if the Penrose Hameroff ORC conjecture is correct. See the discussion below under Understanding. I will also probably continue to further elaborate this conjecture in other blog entries.
There is reason to believe that expression of consciousness goes back to the Cambrian period, 540 to 490 million years ago, and Hameroff wrote about this back in 1996, See Do Insects Have Feelings? “In his communication with Swarajya, Hameroff says that he now thinks ‘(proto-) consciousness’ preceded life itself and could have existed even in previous aeons preceding the Big Bang. He and Penrose even speculate that consciousness may ‘mutate’ or evolve with each sequential big bang, and that the universe may evolve and undergo ‘reincarnation’ to optimise consciousness.” That article links to others on an important topic, the origins of consciousness and goes much further in its outrageous speculations than I do here.
Organization of this blog entry
I am interested in looking behind the curtain of “shit happens,” seeing what mechanisms are involved, and seeing what lessons can be learned that can enable us “to make the right shit happen.”
- The first thing I want to do is to look at natural creation, at what science tells us about the long chain of events starting with the big bang leading to me sitting here writing this, sipping coffee and taking my daily supplement pills. Is it simply a matter of “lots of shit happened” or is there something more and very essential that needs to be said? I believe there is something more. Much more. Although I now only dimly perceive what this “something more” is, I do make a first try here at describing it.
- Then I look at human creation, especially at cases where “lots of lucky shit happened to make the creation possible.” Is there something more and essential about that “lucky shit” that needs to be said? I believe that there is and it is the same “something more” as for natural creation.
- Then I discuss how there is a well thought out set of mechanisms in physics which can be extended to explain both natural creation and human creation. Those are the mechanisms of quantum physics which were identified 100 years ago and ever since refined, expanded, experimentally validated and embedded in practical technologies.
- Finally, I touch on the nature of existence, the boundary between the “real” world of quantum wave fields in physics and our species’ “real” world of normal reality
- I cite a number of relevant quotes from key thinkers that are directly applicable to my thesis.
- I briefly discuss and list some quotes about retrocausality, a concept forwarded by some quantum theorists that is at the heart of my framework for IRC.
In my treatise On Being and Creation, I asserted that the probability of us having the life-supporting conditions in cosmology, in physics, in chemistry and in biology we have without their being guiding life-supporting principles-of-organization at work is much less than that of buying a single lottery ticket every day and winning the grand prize every day for 10 years in a row. Ok. Make that for 10,000 years in a row. Sir Roger Penrose actually thought through what the probability was of the big bang producing a life supporting universe. He came up with 1 part out of a googleplex. A googleplex in ordinary decimal notation is is a 1 followed by a googol of zeroes. Don’t bother trying to write it out; you won’t finish that task. I don’t know if this incredibly tiny number takes into account all the things that happened after the big bang required for our lifeform to exist – including the laws of ordinary physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geology and biology all turning out to be just right.
ON UNDERSTANDING IN BIOLOGY
Roger Penrose thinks we need human consciousness for understanding. While I profoundly agree with him about the role of consciousness in the creation of the universe, I disagree with this. We don’t need to be human to understand. I define “understanding” very differently. I see understanding is the ability of an organism to grasp and respond to features of its environment so as to respond in a way that enhances the survivability of its species. Human understanding has never been more than that. In us, conscious understanding is mediated by a nervous system and brain. And by language, print and electronic media. I submit that none of these are required for profound understanding. Going back to one of my favorite examples, a caterpillar. Each Spring tens of millions of these feed on trees in my back yard that I am looking at right now. A caterpillar understands what trees of many species in my yard have leaves good for them to eat, and how to get to these leaves. It understands the topology of trees and branches and leaves, where to climb and when. It understands how mostly to hide itself from birds, it understands how to discern daily and seasonal changes and how and when it must weave a web and molt into a butterfly to complete its life cycle. It understands a lot more about the science of survival of its own species than I do. A microbe of Campylobacter, an infectious agent, understands how to develop antibiotic resistance to Ciprofloxin. It does that on the level of DNA, probably involving a stress response that leads to greatly increased expression of transposable elements. It does this with no intermediation of a nervous system. An article in Scientific American (March 2017) describes how the corn-rootworm beetle understands how to outsmart enormously extensive and expensive human efforts to wipe it out. As a species, the corn rootworm understands a lot more about itself than all of our researchers do.
Similarly for humans, we depend on a vast number of understandings that we do not yet fully comprehend with our brains. All the early events in embryogenesis, for example, are before a fetus develops any nervous system. Science does not understand the triggers for the steps of early human development, but all of us living humans – no matter how ignorant or illiterate – have drawn on profound built-in-species understanding to get to be as we are. Infectious bacteria are smarter than our lab researchers. “The rate at which these organisms become resistant to antibiotics is far faster than the rate at which we come up with new antibiotics. It’s a race, and they’re winning it,” said researcher Borna Mehrad, MBBS, of UVA’s Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. “Increasingly, the choice of antibiotics to treat these infections is more and more limited, and there are occasions where there just isn’t an antibiotic to treat with, which is a very scary and dangerous situation.” Conscious human understanding, vast and magnificent that it is, is a tiny tiny slice of biological understanding.
So, taking the viewpoint of an evolutionary biologist, I see both consciousness and understanding as applying to all life forms, and the same is true for creation of reality. We have liked to see consciousness and understanding only as the actions of our homo sapiens species of killer apes. But that view sells the forces driving living nature far too short.
I invite you to view some of the Penrose videos, such as this one.
So, let’s start with natural creation.
A SHORT HISTORY OF EVERYTHING
Looking from the viewpoint of what our best current science tells us:
- In the beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, there was the “Big Bang,” the sudden appearance of our universe, initially an incredibly hot bundle of something (matter as we know it now did not exist then, all crammed into a tiny space smaller, much smaller, than a single electron. It does not make sense to ask what existed before this or what caused the Big Bang – because time itself only came into being with the appearance of the universe, and causality as we know it is a time-embedded phenomenon of the universe. None of the laws of physics (nor of anything else) that we know today existed as far as we know. The four basic fields and forces of physics. (strong, weak electromagnetic, and gravitational) as far as we know only emerged as the universe started to cool. Many physicists now think that after the first 10 to the -22 seconds, quantum fields and relativistic fields started operating although particles and matter did not exist until long thereafter. For the first 380,000 years, our observations tell us, the universe was a fireball. Why did the stable basic forces and fundamental particles in our “standard Model” of physics emerge exactly as they did? In an extraordinary large number of ways the emergence of a stable universe as a prerequisite for life depend on them. Why did so very many of our known physical laws and constants turn out to be exactly as they are starting with nothing. Luck?
- As the universe cooled and expanded a bit, we think, conditions started to exist for quantum fields to exist – and elementary particles to exist: quarks, gluons, bosons, leptons, muons, etc. Before that there were no particles. Again, these emerged as exacting prerequisite conditions for existence of matter. And the “Standard Model” of physics became operable – a model in which all reality is made up out of four basic quantum fields. What guided the formation of these very basic fields and particles from super-hot and super-compressed everything-is-the-same-as-everything-else moosh? Of all possibilities, why the ones we got that started the emergence of matter? And then later, life? Again what guided these processes? Luck again?
- Later, clouds of light matter like hydrogen atoms swirled around in the early expanding universe and performed intricate dances and gravity pulled them into nascent suns. There, thermonuclear interactions occurred which created heavier atoms. We need those heavier atoms to have the world we live in. We and the world we live in are made out of 5 billion-year old supernova debris. Here we understand a little bit about how this happened given the laws of physics involved, though there are still many outstanding questions about how things got from debris to what we have now. We don’t understand where those laws of physics came from. Why did the supernova debris contain just the elements we need for life. Luck yet again? Umnhh, I am not so sure.
- With the formation of stars, planets and moons we get further cooling and atoms start to combine into molecules. And guess what? This happens in a systematic way giving us the laws of chemistry. We could not have these before when it was too hot for atoms and molecules to exist. Another set of orderly laws and principles emerged essential for the existence of biology and life. No way the laws of chemistry can be predicted or derived from those of physics. Again, they emerged. Luck again? Same story. Getting more unlikely at each step.
- Speaking of planets, how do we pull off being on a “sweet spot” one not to close to a sun and not too far away so it can support biological life with right elements and features, such as plenty of fresh water? Luck again? Possibly though not so far-fetched this time. We now have identified a few candidate planets that could possibly support some forms of biological life outside our solar system. But the oceans on them – if they have oceans – could be boiling hot or frozen solid. And the atmospheres might not have oxygen.
- The laws and rules of biology and evolution are another matter, My last 10 years of study of biological and life sciences has been an amazing exploration into a very large number of incredibly complex phenomena all essential for the existence of human life. Again, these are emergent phenomena, mostly not at all predictable from the mother sciences of physics and chemistry. Why are these phenomena all as they are, just right to support our biological existence? Luck again?
In all these developments and in numerous sub-areas of the sciences we see some basic recurrent themes:
- The emergence, both in historical time sequence and in our understanding of complex rules, relationships and principles that govern an area or subarea of what observably exists. This proceeded from a time when everything was the same as everything else and there were no rules of science to today. Why this continuing emergence happened and is probably still happening, we not know.
- All of these emergent sciences are compatible with the emergence of life, the existence and development of people and the development of human cultures. Again, there is no obvious reason why this had to be so.
- The laws of science are NOT “for now and forever.” They change and evolve as science becomes more sophisticated. And, on a very much deeper level, they change and evolve as the universe develops. We see this clearly in early history. For example, there could be no laws of biology before there were planetary conditions that support biology. There could be no periodic table of elements before there were elements. There could be no laws of mammalian molecular biology before there were mammals. Today there is puzzlement in that the latest satellite measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe shows it is expanding significantly faster than when they were carefully measured 5 years ago.
In each of these areas and in fact throughout scientific disciplines, nature has unerringly and consistently chosen the paths that are life supporting. Why is this? Scientists like to grapple with questions that they have a hope of answering, and this is not one of them. So the most common answer is “Since we exist, it must be a rule of our universe that the physical/chemical/geological and other conditions required for our existence must exist. They are the ways of nature. End of discussion.” While this sounds nice and is true, it explains nothing. It is just another way of saying ”Lots of complicated shit happened in a way so that we exist. It is too complicated for us to understand it, so please shut up and accept it. End of discussion.”
It is not the end of the discussion for me, however. Hopefully it is the start of new discussion that could be of importance for our species. Drawing on what I have learned studying IRC however, I have recently been developing speculations on these questions.
I suggest a very different explanation, basically that the probabilities for emergence of life-supporting options at each of very many branch points were rigged, strongly rigged in our favor. As laid out in my treatise, I suggest “that there is some organized *will* or *being* or set of *principles of organization* capable of manifesting the existence of things, processes or conditions in at least one physical Universe (ours). I call this will or being or set of principles (he/she/it/I/thou/we) by the name Source. Source is not the laws of nature; those laws are arbitrary, sourced by something else, that something being Source. Source operates by systematic setting and modifications of possibilities and probabilities for processes, things and events.” Source affects the probabilistic quantum fields that underlie our observable reality.
Note that Source with respect Creation have long been honored in spiritual traditions. This is why I choose to use this term.
What I have done here seems to be like a centuries old theosophical trick. I gave an updated version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God (We and the world are creations, creations require a creator, we exist, and therefore God exists), and then I called God by the name “Source.” Not quite so fast though! The above paragraph says what Source does, not what Source is. Source is not God. So when I say Source I am not talking above a judgmental old man on a throne in heaven with a white beard separating the righteous from the wrongscious, or any other trappings of any of our religions. I have nothing to say about souls, sin, afterlife, heaven, hell, Saints or the Devil, reincarnation, churches, priests, holy men, prayer or rituals. Perhaps Science can even point out to us how Source works to do its job, My treatise is a try at that, suggesting that the ways of thinking that describe the operation of quantum mechanics (which is about creation at the smallest scale) also apply to creation at larger scales.
In my treatise, I have put forward the thesis that as humans our intentionality can express Source. Further, I have recently become inclined to believe that Source may be expressed by all living biological organisms. And that the early creation of a life-sustaining universe may have been shaped by quantum wave retrocausation. That is, living organisms may have retro-caused the conditions for their very existence. Finally, that if quantum phenomena are regarded to be part of the physics of our universe, then Source can be explained by the physics of our universe and does not have to be something standing outside of our universe as I originally stated.
BASES OF OBSERVATION AND FOR BELIEF
A long-standing question myself as well as others who read my On Being and Creation treatise have had is “To what extent is this a personal philosophical treatise, and to what extent are the basic tenants of this framework firmly grounded in science?” I have ducked this issue for some 40 years now, preferring to position this body of ideas as falling somewhere near the middle of the spectrum from science to philosophy. As time has progressed however, especially recently, I have been seeing more and more evidence for the science side of the spectrum. That is, I am increasingly seeing IRC as a natural phenomena, not requiring a God or spiritual force outside the universe. I believe what I call Source also has a natural scientific explanation. Clearly the phenomena of IRC are strange, its mechanisms are not observable to our senses, and what I am proposing appears preposterous from any common-sense viewpoint. Much the same can be said of giant black holes in the centers of galaxies that gobble up suns, of dark matter, of dark energy, of an accelerating expansion of the universe, of neutrinos, of quarks, of gravitrons, of superconducting fluids – in fact of anything that operates at the very small scale or very large scale in the universe. Few people have direct sensory experience of many phenomena now taken for granted, such as wave coherence essential for the operation of laser pointers, or of quantum electron tunneling, although this is essential to all electronics in cell phones. And how many people who have read about the exciting discovery of the Higgs Boson have any notion of what this is or why it is important? Dark matter and dark energy make up over 90% of the matter in the universe, Neither have been directly observed but there are compelling theoretical reasons for the existence of both, I think IRC is like these phenomena: there is plenty of scientific evidence that these things exist, but it is indirect evidence not available to our ordinary senses. Here are comments on some of the central aspects I have described for IRC in terms of both observational as well as theoretical bases:
Quantum Mechanics – Vast number of experimental tests for over 100 years now. Quantum physics underlies modern everyday technologies such as all electronics, solid-state materials, nuclear energy and lasers. Observations indicate that the Standard Model of Physics which embraces quantum field theory yields experimental results consistent with physical observations to the possible precision of the measurements. Although QM is inconsistent with normal perceptual reality it is without controversy valid.
Reality of quantum fields vs solid material reality – Same comments, a central part of the Standard Model for physics.
That consciousness creates reality – Held by several of the founders and scientists who have furthered the development of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. See the quotes listed in the final section of this document. Simply put, this provides one of the best non-mathematical explanations of how quantum physics works.
That human intention can shape reality – An ancient and modern concept held in many philosophical, religious and mystical traditions. For me the writer, Intentional Reality Creation (IRC) is grounded in his own personal experiences and observations. Now, it is also grounded in a framework of explanation consistent with science.
That IRC operates as a macroscopic form of quantum mechanics – The reasons for this are propounded in my Treatise On Being and Creation and further elaborated in more recent writings included this one. Essentially, at least three of the major frameworks used to explain quantum mechanics for many decades can be applied equally to IRC.
That quantum information can sometimes be exchanged both forward and backward in time. So that the past can be affected by present and future events – This is a central feature of Cramer’s Transactional model of quantum mechanics. Believed by some contemporary physicists to provide an improved explanation of The Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen effect for entangled systems rather than the idea of information traveling faster than the speed of light. Popularly called Retrocausation. Provides a sensible explanation of how IRC works as outlined in my Treatise.
That all biological life forms express intelligence and intentionality – This is the most basic message of evolutionary biology, assuming intelligence reflects an ability to discern changes in essential features of an environment for survival, and plan out multiple contingency strategies for survival . And know when and how to implement such strategies. And to know when the best thing to do is trigger evolution to a species that survives better under experienced conditions. These are species-level properties of all known species ranging from single-celled organisms to insects, fish and animals. The intentionality is the central drive to survive, thrive and when necessary perpetrate life by evolving to preserve life. The mechanism by which biological entities trigger DNA mutations leading to evolution when confronted with stress is laid out in this science blog entry of mine, Transposable DNA elements – Part 3 TEs and and other key mechanisms of evolution: incRNAs, A to I editing, alternative splicing and exonization.
The idea that all biological entities contribute to creation via a form of intentionality expressed by quantum waves is, to my knowledge, expressed for the first time here in this present writing.
Doing a bit of additional research before publishing this article, I came across the writings of the biologist Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields, which do lay out the concept that all biological entities have all along facilitated their own evolution via “morphogenic fields.” While morphogenetic fields could possibly operate via the mechanisms of quantum waves as I am proposing here, I seriously disagree with some of what Sheldrake says. For example I think it is clear that much of the program of mammalian development and aging itself is encoded in intergenic DNA, which evolves dramatically during a lifetime as shown by DNA methylation clocks. While Sheldrake seems to think of DNA as fixed, being the same in all cells of the body and having nothing to do with morphogenesis. In other respects I do agree with Sheldrake, such as the laws of nature being themselves in evolution.
That biological organisms, single celled and multi-celled, bacteria plant, insect and animal are capable of generating coherent quantum waves that can shape reality – This is the essence of the Penrose Hameroff ORC theory that suggests that microtublules, structural elements in cells, operate also as quantum computers capable of generating coherent perturbations in quantum fields.
That creation of a highly improbable life-sustainable universe may have been mediated by retrocausation of quantum intentionality by life forms. This is the latest twist of my thinking predicated by concepts of quantum entanglement, non-locality, time reversal of quantum waves, the Cramer transactional interpretation of QM and retrocausation. I plan to refine my thoughts on this further as time progresses, drawing on the conceptual frameworks of both the Cramer and the Multiple Worlds interpretations of QM.
I believe that there is a coherent pattern here. Although few of us will ever directly experience black holes and they seem for the moment to have no practical usefulness, we can come to accept and increasingly practice IRC. Just like so many people can drive cars and use smartphones without much understanding of how they work, so also will they be able to embrace and use IRC – once people understand that it is real.
More on what actually exists
Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory do not work by saying that a reality, say a particle, exists somewhere, and the wave function is a way of calculating the probability of where it is. No. NO. NO. They say a particle does not exist as a particle at all until we look for it. A particle is an excitation in a field, e.g. an electron is an excitation in an electron field, an up-quark is an excitation in an up-quark field. What really exists is the quantum wave field. Likewise IRC is not a way of identifying or smoking out a reality that is already there. There is no reality until it is created and looked for. What exists all along is a complex quantum wave field with many possible outcomes. If your intention is to create a barking dog or a nice summer hours or a college scholarship, what is there beforehand are very complex quantum wave functions corresponding to a barking dogs, to nice summer houses, or to college scholarships. That is all there is. There is no already-thereness of intended barking dogs. Your intention if it is realized manifests as an actual barking dog or summer house or college scholarship. Once manifest, it comes with a history of how it was caused and clear reality as evidenced by all our senses. But just like a particle, this reality did not exist until you created it and looked for it.
The transition from quantum reality to normal reality thus corresponds to a shift in a quantum system to where normal classical physics, including causality, applies. In the usual interpretations of quantum theory, once an observation in a quantum system is made, the casual laws of classical physics and normal reality prevails. Once the spin of an electron is set in up or down position, it remains there unless further perturbed. In IRC, once a creation is manifest, it can be seen that the creation came about through cause and effect and normal physics. I like the metaphor that mediating between myself and what exists out there in the universe is a holographic image right on the boundary of me and what is out there. This holographic image is one of normal objective reality in which cause and effect operates. As animals, what we normally see and do, and as we are developmentally programmed to see and do, is experienced with normal reality permanence. My dining room table, the swivel chair I am sitting on and my computer keyboard have not perceptually changed since I saw them yesterday. I like it that way.
On brain rewiring
In my writings I refer to how studying quantum mechanics rewired my brain and I lost faith in normal objective reality when studying it back around 1956. Many other who have studied quantum physics have reported such rewiring. One gives up on normal perceptual reality and relies instead on a beautiful systematic framework of mathematical abstractions. And you can gradually get comfortable Thinking this way. Since the mathematical abstractions can beautifully describe all kinds of experimental results and normal perceptual reality cannot begin to do this, there is no choice but to draw conclusions like: What really exists is quantum wave fields. What we see and experience is a simplified illusion, granted a useful one necessary for our animal survival. It is time we apply such brain rewiring to IRC.
About observables in QM and manifestations of intentions in IRC
In my treatise I suggested that formulating an intention in IRC is like applying an observable in QM. In fact, I am going further and saying that both are the same act. Here is a clarification of that. In classical QM the result of applying an observable is a real number (or vector) representing the observed classical state of a system. Examples are spin of an electron represented by a two-dimensional state vector (up and down or zero 1 being typical state names), and position of an electron represented by a vector in classical 3-space. The eigenstates of a system are the only ones that can actually be observed. In the case of position of an electron there is an infinite number of positions in a 3-dimensional classical continuum and therefore an infinite number of eigenstates. In the case of the spin of an electron, however, there are actually only two eigenstates, up and down. The same is true for Schroedinger’s cat being alive or dead. I submit that when an intention D in IRC is made there are similarly only two eigenstates: either the intention is satisfied (1) or it is not satisfied (0) so the state vector of D has only two components. There may be a large or infinitely large number of ways in which an intention may or may not be satisfied, but there are only two eigenstates for the observable which is the intention itself. From what we know about the mathematics of quantum theory, the observable D is represented by a two-dimensional Hermetian matrix. Thus the IRC quantum operators appear to be quite simple although calculation of the matrix components appears beyond us.
About QM and the multiple universes theory
The idea of macroscopic phenomena behaving according to the laws of QM as adopted in intentional reality creation are not at all new. The multiple universe interpretation of QM views the observer is along with the observed in any observation as an overall system, as represented by a composite wave function. Therefore it simultaneously considers macroscopic scale as well as tiny “quantum scale” all to behave according to the laws of QM. Of course we know that many macroscopic impacts of quantum coherence are easily observable, such as laser light or the behavior of super-cooled fluids. A group of astrophysicists are pursuing the idea that quantum physics applies to the universe as a whole. By essentially equating the “multiverse” theory of astrophysics and the “multiple universe” concept of QM, certain paradoxes about the early formation of “pocket universes” right after the big bang can be resolved. See the article The Quantum Universe in the June 2017 edition of Scientific American magazine. “An obvious but important implication of this picture is that everything in nature obeys the laws of quantum mechanics, whether small or large.” So, if I make a reality creation intention X and X happens, I am selecting my consciousness into the subset of universes where X is so. There is another subset of universes, e.g. probability states, where X is not so.
The same article points out that observed reality can be relative. What is so in the universe is a function of time and place of the observer with respect to the observed phenomena.
VIEWS OF OTHER THINKERS
The idea that consciousness profoundly acts on matter has been seriously forwarded by several prominent physicist deep-thinkers including Eugene Wigner, and David Bohm. They see clearly that consciousness impacts creation and reality on the basic level, the level of quantum phenomena.
In the usual interpretations of quantum theory, once an observation in a quantum system is made, the casual laws of classical physics and normal reality prevails. Once the spin of an electron is set in up or down position, it remains there unless further perturbed.
If you read their papers you will also find yourself deep in discussions of manifolds of orthogonal infinite-dimension Hilbert Space vectors, variants of the Schrodinger equation, eigenvalues and eigenstates, Hermitian matrix transformations, interpretations of Bell’s Theorem, details of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen hypothesis, and other areas of mathematical physics that can be comprehended only by a small number of theoretical thinkers. These are thinkers who have learned to set aside our intuitive views of reality and see reality instead through the frameworks of mathematical constructions. The ordinary intelligent and educated reader of the New York Times, the Atlantic Monthly and the Saturday Review cannot follow those discussions. Even the popular versions of these ideas such as published in Scientific American are extremely difficult to follow, tedious and sometimes boring. Perhaps this is why what has been long-accepted by some of our deepest thinker physicists remains unknown to most today: That consciousness affects what exists and what is real.
If you are mathematically at ground zero and would like to start moving into that mathematical world and have the time, patience and mental stamina to do so, let me suggest a series of six hour-and-45 minute lectures by Leonard Susskind, from his course concentrating on Quantum Entanglements given at Stanford University in 2006, on YouTube. This will introduce you to the essential mathematical tools. For the rest of you (and me too) the quotes below are much easier to grok.
Here are a few quotes from such thinkers:
“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.” — Bernard d’Espagnat
“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan
“It seems significant that according to quantum physics the indestructibility of energy on one hand — which expresses its timeless existence — and the appearance of energy in space and time on the other hand correspond to two contradictory (complementary) aspects of reality. In fact, both are always present, but in individual cases the one or the other may be more pronounced,” ― Wolfgang Pauli
The layman always means, when he says “reality” that he is speaking of something self-evidently known; whereas to me it seems the most important and exceedingly difficult task of our time is to work on the construction of a new idea of reality. ― Wolfgang Pauli
“Atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution and quantum physics.” ― Nunn, Guy and Bell, The quantum mitochondrion and optimal health
While at it, here are a few more quotes, not necessarily coming from scientists but which relate directly to the implications propounded in my On Being and Creation Treatise.
“I imagined a New World where instantaneous creation from pure thought into full physical form to be very possible. What a world it would be if there were more and more people walking and talking like master creators and master alchemists creating something out of nothing, defying the constraints of space and time.” ― Tahira Amir Khan, Through the Golden Door: The Doorway to Our Advancement
“The more we delve into quantum mechanics the stranger the world becomes; appreciating this strangeness of the world, whilst still operating in that which you now consider reality, will be the foundation for shifting the current trajectory of your life from ordinary to extraordinary. It is the Tao of mixing this cosmic weirdness with the practical and physical, which will allow you to move, moment by moment, through parallel worlds to achieve your dreams.” ― Kevin Michel, Moving Through Parallel Worlds To Achieve Your Dreams
“This book is about entanglements. To be entangled is not simply to be intertwined with another, as in the joining of separate entities, but to lack an independent, self-contained existence. Existence is not an individual affair. Individuals do not preexist their interactions; rather, individuals emerge through and as part of their entangled intra-relating. Which is not to say that emergence happens once and for all, as an event or as a process that takes place according to some external measure of space and of time, but rather that time and space, like matter and meaning, come into existence, are iteratively reconfigured through each intra-action, thereby making it impossible to differentiate in any absolute sense between creation and renewal, beginning and returning, continuity and discontinuity, here and there, past and future.”
― Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning
“I have no time for situations where there is no consciousness.” ― Vince Giuliano, while driving on a Winter night
“With rare exceptions, I have met the key people in my life via unforeseen circumstances or by accident. Not by my seeking them out. Where the meetings by luck? Yes, looking superficially. But luck cannot explain the intricate ways people continue to weave into and out of my life to satisfy my deepest intentions.” ― Vince Giuliano, while driving on a winter night
The following quote relates to a theme I have focus on in these writings – that we, biological entities and in particular people, create the world in which we live. Further, that the physical laws through we do this have been identified for about a hundred years now.
“Quantum physics findings show that consciousness itself created order – or indeed in some way created the world – this suggested much more capacity in the human being than was currently understood. It also suggested some revolutionary notions about humans in relation to their world and the relation between all living things. What they were asking was how far our bodies extended. Did they end with what we always thought of as our own isolated persona, or ‘extend out’ so that the demarcation between us and our world was less clear-cut? Did living consciousness possess some quantum field like properties, enabling it to extend its influence out into the world? If so, was it possible to do more than simply observe? How strong was our influence? It was only a small step in logic to conclude that in our act of participation as an observer in the quantum world, we might also be an influencer, a creator. Did we not only stop the butterfly at a certain point in its flight, but also influence the path it will take – nudging it in a particular direction? This explains action at a distance, what scientists call non locality. The theory that two subatomic particles once in close proximity seemingly communicate over any distance after they are separated.” ― Lynne McTaggart, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe
“The essence of quantum mechanics is that what we observe when we look at something is fundamentally different from what exists when we are not looking at it.” Sean Carroll