By Vince Giuliano

SigmundC gLR

Can present or future events affect the past?  A phenomenon known as retrocausality.  I have argued definitely YES, retrocausality exists in the quantum world and is also an important aspect of  what I have called Intentional Reality Creation (IRC). If you want a sample of what other “yes” voices say before going further here, you can check out the videos on this list.

The Cramer transactional model of quantum physics*, as applied to reality creation as outlined in my treatise ON BEING AND CREATION presumes quantum waves going both forward and backward in time, searching for possible events and situations that could lead fulfillment of an intention.  These are followed by quantum response waves moving in the opposite time direction.  The processes, though they have ranged both forward and backward in time are completely instantaneous because of the opposite-direction returning wave.  From the viewpoint of our intuition which is grounded in our biological grasping of the laws of normal reality, these ideas of are quite nonsensical.  After all, nothing has ever been known to go backwards in time and everything that happens takes at least a little time to happen.  And, what in tarnation is a quantum wave, anyway?  If we can’t see, hear, feel or taste any such thing, or tune it in with an electronic device, why should we believe that it exists?  From the viewpoint of physics and its mathematics, however, the situation is not so simple.  The equations of all of the fundamental laws of classical as well as quantum physics appear to work perfectly fine going backwards in time as well is forward. Just substitute (-t) for (t).  That is, they display symmetry regard to time.


*Abstract of Cramer’s 1986 paper: “The interpretational problems of quantum mechanics are considered. The way in which the standard Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics deals with these problems is reviewed. A new interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the Transactional Interpretation (TI), is presented. The basic element of TI is the transaction describing a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The TI is explicitly nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell Inequality, yet is relativistically invariant and fully causal. A detailed comparison of the TI and CI is made in the context of well known quantum mechanical gedanken experiments and “paradoxes”. The TI permits quantum mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves physically present in space rather than as “mathematical representations of knowledge” as in the CI. The TI is shown to provide insight into the complex character of the quantum mechanical state vector and the mechanism associated with its “collapse”. The TI also leads in a natural way to justification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Born probability law [P=*], basic elements of the CI.”


What we see as the arrow of time  is inexorably increasing entropy, which has to do with asymmetry in thermodynamics which is also a time asymmetry in information transfer. Entropy is a measure of thermodynamic disorganization which always increases in any closed system, a measure with scientific history going back to the 1850’s (ref).  For example, entropy dictates that you never see smoke gathering itself up in the sky and going down a smokestack or pieces of a broken wine glass leaping up off the floor and reassembling themselves as the glass. That is because vastly more information is required to track each particle of smoke and send it back down the chimney than is required for smoke coming out the chimney and billowing out in the normal time direction. Likewise, vastly more information is required to identify the characteristics and positions of every particle of broken glass and reassemble of them into the original glass then would be required to run the movie in the normal forward direction.  The equations of Shannon Weaver information theory (ref) and the equations of statistical dynamics are identical, in fact.  And entropy and information are just different interpretations of the same equation. This asymmetry between forward in time and backwards in time is clearly and manifestly true in terms of classical physics. We experience it all the time.  However, many researchers have argued that this need not at all be the case for quantum physics. In other words, the fundamental barrier to going backwards in time need not exist on the quantum level.  That is the main topic I explore in this blog entry.  In particular, I explore retrocausation.  Events in the future effecting events in the past.

In terms of the physics and mathematics of the situation, having quantum waves go backwards in time is no problem. Again this makes no sense to us in terms of the sensory and nervous system processing capabilities provided to us as animals. Virtually everything that we read in science texts make no cognitive sense whatsoever to a worm, caterpillar, mouse or deer in a forest.  As biological creatures they as well as we humans have been evolved so as to have direct perception only of the matters most in the interest of their survival.  But we know there is much that is very real that we cannot directly perceive, like radio and TV waves, and virus and bacteria that can make us sick.

What we perceive to be real is a function of history and culture and technology of the times.  It would make no sense for most people two hundred years ago to be told that that there are invisible waves surrounding us full of sights and sounds, though we know that is so now because of TV. And for most of our human history we were unaware of bacteria and viruses as causes of infectious diseases.   Relatively few people understand the Maxwell equations governing the transmission of radio and television and cell phone waves but virtually everybody now believes that they exist. This is despite the fact that we cannot touch, smell, taste, hear or feel them or in any way perceive them without the aid of electronic circuitry. We are just not used to the incredible non-intuitive concepts of quantum physics, although we are necessarily utilizing quantum phenomena all the time for our very survival. And, most educated people say they believe in it although they do not begin to comprehend it. My suggestion is followed the math you are capable of doing so. For example, read the research articles cited below and seek to understand mathematics they puts forward.

A popular explanation of this recent research on retrocausatuion can be found in the July 2018 Science Daily article Reversing cause and effect is no trouble for quantum computers  Here are some selected quotes from that publication and my reactions to them (in red):

“Watch a movie backwards and you’ll likely get confused — but a quantum computer wouldn’t. That’s the conclusion of researcher Mile Gu at the Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University and collaborators. — In research published 18 July in Physical Review X, the international team show that a quantum computer is less in thrall to the arrow of time than a classical computer. In some cases, it’s as if the quantum computer doesn’t need to distinguish between cause and effect at all. — In everyday life, understanding what will happen next is easier if you know what just happened, and what happened before that. —  the fundamental laws of physics are ambivalent about whether time moves forwards or in reverse.”  Unidirectional cause-and-effect as we know it appears to be a function of the arrow of time in macroscopic decoherent systems, ultimately having to do with increasing entropy in normal reality.

“The most exciting thing for us is the possible connection with the arrow of time,” says Thompson, first author on the work. “If causal asymmetry is only found in classical models, it suggests our perception of cause and effect, and thus time, can emerge from enforcing a classical explanation on events in a fundamentally quantum world,” she says.  We are fundamentally in a quantum world and trying to see it through our biological filters of normal sensory reality simply doesn’t work.  We need to grow up and give that up if we want to understand what is really going on.

Selections from the original 2018 publication Causal Asymmetry in a Quantum World:

“The fundamental laws of physics work in the same way whether time moves forward or backward. Yet, while a glass can fall and scatter shards across the floor, glass shards never gather together and leap back onto the counter to form a complete glass. The source of this temporal asymmetry is one of the deepest mysteries in physics. We tackle this problem by combining two different disciplines, computational and quantum mechanics. Our results illustrate that the asymmetry could emerge from forcing classical causal explanations on observations in a fundamentally quantum world.”   Scientists who do this need to Grow Up if they are really concerned with the nature of reality!

“Computational mechanics asks the following question: Given a sequence of observations, how many past causes must we postulate to explain future behavior? This quantity is asymmetric when time is reversed. There is an unavoidable memory overhead cost for modeling a process in the “less-natural” temporal direction—one must pay a price to enforce explanations adhering to a less-favored order of events. — We show that quantum models always mitigate this overhead. Not only can we construct quantum models that need less past information than optimal classical counterparts, these models can always be reprogrammed to model the time-reversed process without additional memory cost. This remains true even for observational data where this classical overhead diverges, such that all classical models for the less-natural temporal direction require unbounded memory. — We illustrate scenarios where classical favoritism for particular causal orders vanishes when quantum models are permitted, thus highlighting a new mechanism for the origin of time’s arrow.”  Talking about less overhead in classical models from going from past to future is like saying you need much more information in going from future to past – so this is just another way of talking about entropy in classical models.


  • “A stochastic process can be modeled in either temporal order. (a) A causal model takes information available in the past ←xand uses it to make statistically accurate predictions about the process’s conditional future behavior P(→X|←X=←x). (b) A retrocausal model replicates the system’s behavior, as seen by an observer who scans the outputs from right to left, encountering Xt+1 before Xt. Thus, it stores relevant future information →x, in order to generate a statistically accurate retrodiction of the past P(←X|→X=→x). Causal asymmetry implies a nonzero gap between the minimum memory required by any causal model C+ and its retrocausal counterpart C−.”  The memory required for retrocausality in a quantum system is the same or less as that for causality.

Implications are that retrocausality – events now or in the future affecting events or situations in the past – is no problem at the quantum level.  My fundamental proposition is that Intentional Reality Creation is basically a quantum phenomenon on the macroscopic scale.  As explained below, sending macroscopic messages backwards in time is impossible, because of thermodynamic/information considerations.  However, creating events and situations in the past may be going on all the time due to retrocaustion.   The suggestion is that we cannot send messages into the past but can to a significant extend dictate to the past to have been as how we want it to have been!  Holly bananas! Why do we not notice this?  Probably because evolutionary biology does not require such noticing and further, such noticing would confuse us endlessly.

Next, let’s turn to a 2017 publication Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past.

This article points out that allowing for retrocausality is much less of a violation of what we think we know about physics than the alternative which requires we accept “spooky action at a distance.”  Accepting retrocausality makes some of the worst paradoxes of quantum physics – liken “spooky action at a distance” go away.   “Although there are many counterintuitive ideas in quantum theory, the idea that influences can travel backwards in time (from the future to the past) is generally not one of them. However, recently some physicists have been looking into this idea, called it “retrocausality,” because it can potentially resolve some long-standing puzzles in quantum physics. In particular, if retrocausality is allowed, then the famous Bell tests can be interpreted as evidence for retrocausality and not for action-at-a-distance—a result that Einstein and others skeptical of that “spooky” property may have appreciated.”  For example, if two correlated particles are emitted from a common source and go running off in opposite directions, then one must have + spin and the other must have – spin.  But there is no way to distinguish which is which until a measurement is made.  Experimentally this has been shown.  If one has + spin then the other surely has – spin, and the other way around.  This holds no matter how far the particles have traveled apart, apparently even over stellar distances.  The paradox arises if the particles have traveled far enough and the measurements made so quickly one after another, that there is not time at the speed of light for a signal to get from the first measured particles when its spin is measured to the second particle when its spin is measured.  The second particles “knows” what spin it must have, measurements indicate, the very instant the spin of the first particle is measured.  So this information must be transmitted instantly somehow over long distances, violating the principal that nothing ever ever in the universe travels faster than light.  This is a rock solid Einstein conclusion from relativity theory that has held solid for well over 100 years now.  Now allow retrocausation and what happens is that when the spin of the first particle is measured, that spin is set back at the time when the pair of particles was emitted, and also the spin was simultaneously set for the second particle.  The paradox of a mysterious signal faster than light goes away.  Retrocausality thus permits a simple explanation of what otherwise would violate a fundamental principle of physics.

Note that in this example, it is the very act of measurement that triggered retrocausation.  As we will see, this is very relevant for IRC where the formulation of an unbounded intention IS the act of measurement.  In my treatise, retrocausation is discussed in the Cramer interpretation as due to a “quantum query wave moving backward in time looking for possible past conditions that would lead to satisfaction of the intention.”  And retrocausation was discussed there in the multiple-worlds interpretation in terms of “a successful intention shifting the intender into a submanifold of universes where past and future conditions are favorable to satisfaction of the intention.”  This blog entry uses other frameworks for discussing retroccausation, but the underlying concept is the same.  From the above-cited publication, where again comments in red and parentheses are mine.


Fig 1


Can Bell correlations be explained by retrocausal influences? Figure 1 shows an influence diagram representing the possible causal influences in a model with no retrocausality. Credit: Leifer and Pusey. ©2017 The Royal Society. — In a new paper published in Proceedings of The Royal Society Aphysicists Matthew S. Leifer at Chapman University and Matthew F. Pusey at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics have lent new theoretical support for the argument that, if certain reasonable-sounding assumptions are made, then quantum theory must be retrocausal.”

The appeal of retrocausality

First, to clarify what retrocausality is and isn’t: It does not mean that signals can be communicated from the future to the past—such signaling would be forbidden even in a retrocausal theory due to thermodynamic reasons. Instead, retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.  Instantly.

In the case of IRC, where an unbounded intention corresponds to an Operator in classical QM, specifying an intention where the intention itself makes clear what must be observed for it to be satisfied, can influence past events or conditions so as to lead to satisfaction of the intention.  The disquieting implication is that the past is not manifest but exists as complex quantum wave functions of what could have existed.  The past mostly consists of wave functions of possibilities.  Note that the past also consist of “collapsed” wave functions of believed past realities, things that make it “real”  such as in memories, historical records, geological artifacts, photographs and astronomical and terrestrial observations.)  In my treatise and in past blog entries, in particular in WHAT’S ALREADY DONE ISN’T NECESSARILY DONE YET, I explain the same situation by saying the past is vastly undetermined and is fixed only insofar experience records are concerned.

In the original Bell tests, physicists assumed that retrocausal influences could not happen. Consequently, in order to explain their observations that distant particles seem to immediately know what measurement is being made on the other, the only viable explanation was action-at-a-distance. That is, the particles are somehow influencing each other even when separated by large distances, in ways that cannot be explained by any known mechanism. But by allowing for the possibility that the measurement setting for one particle can retrocausally influence the behavior of the other particle, there is no need for action-at-a-distance—only retrocausal influence.  Actually in physics, it is far less disruptive of theory to honor retrocausality than spooky instantaneous action at a distance.

One of the main proponents of retrocausality in quantum theory is Huw Price, a philosophy professor at the University of Cambridge. In 2012, Price laid out an argument suggesting that any quantum theory that assumes that 1) the quantum state is real, and 2) the quantum world is time-symmetric (that physical processes can run forwards and backwards while being described by the same physical laws) must allow for retrocausal influences. Understandably, however, the idea of retrocausality has not caught on with physicists in general.

“There is a small group of physicists and philosophers that think this idea is worth pursuing, including Huw Price and Ken Wharton [a physics professor at San José State University],” Leifer told “There is not, to my knowledge, a generally agreed upon interpretation of quantum theory that recovers the whole theory and exploits this idea. It is more of an idea for an interpretation at the moment, so I think that other physicists are rightly skeptical, and the onus is on us to flesh out the idea.”  A video presentation by Hue Price on retrocausality can be found here.

“In the new study, Leifer and Pusey attempt to do this by generalizing Price’s argument, which perhaps makes it more appealing in light of other recent research. They begin by removing Price’s first assumption, so that the argument holds whether the quantum state is real or not—a matter that is still of some debate. A quantum state that is not real would describe physicists’ knowledge of a quantum system rather than being a true physical property of the system. Although most research suggests that the quantum state is real, it is difficult to confirm one way or the other, and allowing for retrocausality may provide insight into this question. Allowing for this openness regarding the reality of the quantum state is one of the main motivations for investigating retrocausality in general, Leifer explained.”

“The reason I think that retrocausality is worth investigating is that we now have a slew of no-go results about realist interpretations of quantum theory, including Bell’s theorem, Kochen-Specker, and recent proofs of the reality of the quantum state,” he said. “These say that any interpretation that fits into the standard framework for realist interpretations must have features that I would regard as undesirable. Therefore, the only options seem to be to abandon realism or to break out of the standard realist framework.”

“Abandoning realism is quite popular, but I think that this robs science of much of its explanatory power and so it is better to find realist accounts where possible. The other option is to investigate more exotic realist possibilities, which include retrocausality, relationalism, and many-worlds. Aside from many-worlds, these have not been investigated much, so I think it is worth pursuing all of them in more detail. I am not personally committed to the retrocausal solution over and above the others, but it does seem possible to formulate it rigorously and investigate it, and I think that should be done for several of the more exotic possibilities.”

Can’t have both time symmetry and no-retrocausality

“In their paper, Leifer and Pusey also reformulate the usual idea of time symmetry in physics, which is based on reversing a physical process by replacing t with –t in the equations of motion. The physicists develop a stronger concept of time symmetry here in which reversing a process is not only possible but that the probability of occurrence is the same whether the process is going forward or backward.”

“The physicists’ main result is that a quantum theory that assumes both this kind of time symmetry and that retrocausality is not allowed runs into a contradiction. They describe an experiment illustrating this contradiction, in which the time symmetry assumption requires that the forward and backward processes have the same probabilities, but the no-retrocausality assumption requires that they are different.”

“So ultimately everything boils down to the choice of whether to keep time symmetry or no-retrocausality, as Leifer and Pusey’s argument shows that you can’t have both. Since time symmetry appears to be a fundamental physical symmetry, they argue that it makes more sense to allow for retrocausality. Doing so would eliminate the need for action-at-a-distance in Bell tests, and it would still be possible to explain why using retrocausality to send information is forbidden.”

“The case for embracing retrocausality seems stronger to me for the following reasons,” Leifer said. “First, having retrocausality potentially allows us to resolve the issues raised by other no-go theorems, i.e., it enables us to have Bell correlations without action-at-a-distance. So, although we still have to explain why there is no signaling into the past, it seems that we can collapse several puzzles into just one. That would not be the case if we abandon time symmetry instead.

Second, we know that the existence of an arrow of time already has to be accounted for by thermodynamic arguments, i.e., it is a feature of the special boundary conditions of the universe and not itself a law of physics.   Since the ability to send signals only into the future and not into the past is part of the definition of the arrow of time, it seems likely to me that the inability to signal into the past in a retrocausal universe could also come about from special boundary conditions, and does not need to be a law of physics. Time symmetry seems less likely to emerge in this way (in fact, we usually use thermodynamics to explain how the apparent time asymmetry that we observe in nature arises from time-symmetric laws, rather than the other way round).”

“As the physicists explain further, the whole idea of retrocausality is so difficult to accept because we don’t ever see it anywhere else. (Actually I am suggesting we see it all the time with IRC,  We just don’t recognize that is what is going on.) The same is true of action-at-a-distance. But that doesn’t mean that we can assume that no-retrocausality and no-action-at-a-distance are true of reality in general. In either case, physicists want to explain why one of these properties emerges only in certain situations that are far removed from our everyday observations.  (If IRC goes on using mechanisms of retrocausality, not at all removed)




By Vince Giuliano

Posted December 17, 2019


This blog entry suggests that intentionality acts like a physical field like electromagnetism, citing various physicists who have argued this point.  It is intended to be supportive of my thesis that Intentional Reality Creation (IRC) operates through mechanisms very similar to if not identical with the mechanisms of quantum physics.  This is as characterized in my treatise ON BEING AND CREATION.

The roles human consciousness and intentionality play in quantum physics have been debated since the first principles of quantum physics were laid out nearly 100 years ago.  For example,  Niels Bohr struggled with the meaning and role of intentionality, as discussed in the 2007  book Halfway:  Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning.  Passing to the field of biology, there is a different way to look at intentionality.  There are within organisms or every level of complexity multiple hormetic signaling feedback mechanisms.  These are needed to main homeostasis, operability and survival of an organism in the presence of changing environmental conditions.  One form of such signaling in humans is via conscious intentions, intentions which are verbalized statements of what a human would like to see develop, happen or become manifest..

I also believe human-level consciousness is not necessary for expression of intentionality.   In a human there can be  preconscious or unconscious intentions which can take the form of neurological or other signaling in the interest of survival or wellbeing of an individual member.  Further, I susbmit that every living species is interested deeply in its survival, has expressed its own form of intentions for survival, and has evolved strategies for survival.  These conditions are requisites for a species to still exist.  Such intentions, I surmise, could have contributed to the evolution of species and even possibly to the evolution of the universe itself.  I plan to explore this thesis in a future blog entry, for now sticking to consciously verbalized human  intentions.

I have suggested that conscious intentions can be propagated by quantum waves that cross space and time and influence matter in such a way that they can influence events and what exists.  That is the central thesis propounded in the On Being and Creation document.

I have suggested that a conscious intention acts like a quantum operator.

Some properties of conscious intentions:

  • They deal with the domain of macroscopic “normal” reality, with what we want to show up in our day-to=day normal reality, not with intended quantum-level phenomena.
  • Therefore I take it, they deal with incoherent systems, not matters like coherent light beams or superconducting fluids.
  • They deal with matters in which the normal rules of cause-and-effect are applicable, as a characteristic of normal reality.
  • They are mostly intentions a-symmetric in time, dealing with how situations are intended to be in the in the future rather than how they have been in the past. (This despite the fact that an intention may work by retrocausality to create past conditions necessary for the intended creation to be seen eventually as the result of normal causality.)  I am preparing a separate blog entry on retrocausality.
  • Satisfaction of such an intention results in local decreases of entropy (more organization), at the expense of larger-systems increase in entropy (according to the Second Law of thermodynamics).
  • Since time itself may be defined by the increase of entropy of larger systems, intentions themselves may play a role in defining time and the difference between past and future.

By the laws of normal and classical physical reality, intentions not acted on would have no effects.  (Do nothing, and nothing happens).  Personal experiences of successful intentional reality creation – too many of them to be explicable by chance – led me to come to the unlikely set of ideas I am promulgating here.  So I am suggesting that the explanation lies elsewhere, where it still can be completely objective and scientific.  The history of science provides many prior examples where this has been the case.  Most laws of chemistry and chemical properties of matter depend on electromagnetic field considerations having to do with electron orbits.  Yet, prior to Maxwell’s identification and elucidation of electromagnetic fields in 1892, there was no scientific basis for magnetism, let alone chemistry.   Think of what a mystery an electromagnetic field was at first(ref).  We know electromagnetism now it by what it does and by its properties, now described as a quantum field, the most fundamental thing it is made out of.  Although it effects are manifest everywhere, its actual nature is not directly manifest to our senses and was unknown in most of the history of humanity. The electron itself was not identified until 1897.  Most of us now believe they exist though we can never see, feel, hear or smell one.

I am suggesting the possibility that intentionality acts like a fundamental physical field, like those for gravitation, electromagnetism, the Weak Force and the Strong Force. These fields seem to have important spatio-temporal differences and differences with respect to effects on matter. (I am taking a classical view of these fields for now.  Later I will expand the discussion to consider quantum fields, thought by many physicists the only things existing in the universe.)

We know fields by what they do and their observable properties.  And by the formulae that appear to govern them.  That is all.  We can write out formulas for how these fields devolve in time and interact with matter.  But there is no way we can ground our knowledge of these fields in concepts of our ordinary animal reality.   I am comfortable with the concept that gravity is due to curvature of space itself due to the presence of matter, and that matter itself is a relatively static aspect of energy.  But for a dog or caterpillar of deer or young child, such conceptions make no sense.

Fields characterize how underlying not-observable and quite incredible complex realities translate into the normal reality of our senses and cause-and-effect we function in.  Intentionality as a field does the same.

The 4 fundamental classical fields of physics correspond, we think with particles, although not all (eg. The gravitron) have been directly observed.

An intention seems to be originated at an instance in time, but once created can have influence on both past and future events.  (Cramer Theory) Even though the results of the intention are projected to be in the future.

  • Question: what systematic experiments could confirm or discredit the existence of intentionality as a field?
  • Question: how do Intentions devolve and work in time? How do they interact with matter?
  • Question: what would the nature of a particle associated with intentionality be – The Intenton? What experiments could we create to identify an Intention in action?

Some suggestive art

What could the field of intentionality look like if we could envision it?  I obviously don’t know, but here are a few suggestive images  from my personal Artkoukou collection:

Physicists pursuing quantum intentionality effects

Less you think I am uniquely nuts with these ideas, I point out that there are a number of serious scientists pursuing similar and closely related concepts related to quantum intentionality.  A list of references is included below.  Many but not all of these papers require backgrounds in mathematics or quantum theory to follow them.

One with a readable introduction is the 2015 document New Issue to Modeling Intentionality in the Field of Consciousness, with abstract “–The issue now emerging is a new conception of intentionality based on phenomenological, neurobiological and quantum theories, such as: 1) the notion of “intentional arc” proposed in the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty; 2) the neurobiological and quantum model of Freeman, in which self-organizing pathways are accompanied by quantum transitions in controlling intentionality in brain; 3) the recent hypothesis that some visuo-motor neurons would be involved in controlling these self-organized pathways; 4) the quantum models of Vitiello and Globus, in which a thermofield (dissipative) system governs the dynamic dialog of dual quantum modes between environment and brain. Based on this conception of mind-world interactions, it implicitly appears that intentionality might be a fundamental force which draws us irreversibly towards the future. An alternative hypothesis based on this promising proposal is argued.” 

Another example, if you are a mathematical physicist you could read Quantum Intentionality and Determination of Realities in the Space-Time Through Path Integrals and Their Integral Transforms. This article discusses intentionality as a physical field, in the same sense as this blog entry does.  “In the universe three fundamental realities exist inside our perception, which share messages and quantum processes: the physical, energy and mental reality. These realities happen at all times and they are around us like part of our existence spending one to other one across organised transformations which realise a linking field – energy-matter across the concept of conscience of a field on the interpretation of the matter and space to create a reality non-temporal that only depends on the nature of the field, for example, the gravitational field is a reality in the space – time that generates a curved space for the presence of masses. At macroscopic level and according to the Einsteinian models the time is a flexible band that acts in form parallel to the space. Nevertheless, studying the field at microscopic level dominated by particles that produce gravity, the time is an intrinsic part of the space (there is no distinction between one and other), since the particles contain a rotation concept (called spin) that is intrinsic to the same particles that produce gravity from quantum level [1].Then the gravitational field between such particles is an always present reality and therefore non-temporal. — The time at quantum level is the distance between cause and effect,  but the effect (gravitational spin) is contained in the proper particle that is their cause on having been interrelated with other particles and in the proper particle that is their cause on having been interrelated with other particles and vice versa the effect contains the cause since the particle changed their direction [1].  Then the action of any field that is wished transforms their surrounding reality which must spill through the component particles of the space – time, their nature and to transmit it in organised form, which is legal, because the field is invariant under movements of the proper space, and in every particle there sublies a part of the field through their spinor.  Then the gravitational field between such particles is an always present reality and therefore non-temporal.”

If you have the time and patience there is a relevant book Quantum Physics Meets the Philosophy of Mind.  “The key insight that will be defended here that quantum mechanics might give us some help in understanding how intentionality is rooted in physical reality, because quantum mechanuics suggests that there is some form of representation and physical processing built into the very fabric of the universe.”

Another interesting publication is Mathematical Nanotechnology: Quantum Field Intentionality.  “Considering the finite actions of a field on the matter and the space which used to infiltrate their quantum reality at level particle, methods are developed to serve to base the concept of “intentional action” of a field and their ordered and supported effects (synergy) that must be realized for the “organized transformation” of the space and matter. Using path integrals, these transformations are decoded and their quantum principles are shown.”  The body of this paper treats intentionality as a field and provides a highly mathematical model of how it operates.

It is not that all strange for quantum physicists to think of intentionality as a fundamental physical field like gravity or electromagnetism or the weak or strong or electromagnetic forces.  They have gotten used to the idea of physical fields for well over a century now.  The layperson watching a thriller in front of his gigantic TV does not want to leave the fuzzy comfort zone of normal reality.  He does not want to stop to think that he is held down in his recliner chair by an invisible gravitational field, that the TV program is brought to him by invisible fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, and that he is held together by the strong force field.



Bay of The Moon Cherub

2/7/2019  Image: ArtKouKou by Vince Giuliano

Zoltar works by magic; IRC is how absolutely everything works.

Untitled-1    Untitled-2 Untitled-2

    Images source and source


My treatise ON BEING AND CREATION basically argues that Intention-driven Reality Creation (IRC) behaves according to well established rules of quantum mechanics (QM), and that materializing a reality by creating a deep-felt intention is similar to or may be the same as applying an operator is QM.  The rules of QM referred to and discussed in that treatise are those of classical QM, mostly known for over 100 years now.  They are ones I first learned when I was in graduate school in the late 1950s.  But the years since then have seen at least a few major waves of advancement in QM such as Quantum Chromodynamics, Feynman diagrams, Quantum Field Theory, , and our understanding of quantum entanglement,  And significant but illusive efforts to make quantum computing practicable have led to advances in Quantum information theory.

These newer areas bring along them whole new classes of theoretical and mathematical constructs.  And new ways of thinking.  The classical representational frameworks of classical QM like infinite-dimensional Hilbert Spaces were difficult enough to grasp. Gravity is not really a force; it is simply a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime in the presence of matter.                                                                                                                                                              Now we have new bunches of more sophisticated distinctions, For example, qubits, the basic units of information in quantum computing.    A bit in conventional computing has one of two values, 0 or 1.  A qubit is continuous-valued, describable by a direction on the Bloch sphere.  You can’t make copies of qubits or destroy them; they are very wierd.

This blog entry discusses a few selected aspect of how these newer conceptual frameworks impinge on the arguments and case made in my treatise – whether the newer theories weaken or strengthen the fundamental argument pointing to the similarity or identity of QM and IRC.  For example, if we looked at IRC through the perspective of quantum information theory, what might that tell us.


The old everybody-knows answer is of course space and matter, with matter made up of tiny particles, ones with hooks back in the times of the ancient Greeks, quarks and electrons as of just a few years ago.  Empty space of course contains nothing.  Comforting, and still what I tell my 6-year old grandson.  But wrong according to physicists who keep up with such matters.  The new answer is that all space is full of quantum fields and that these are the only things that exist, 12 different ones for matter and 4 different ones for forces.  Space and time themselves are a quantum field.  These fields are constantly interacting and changing and may assume different values according to the laws of quantum physics.  Matter, particles, are vibrations in fields; all of them.  Particles are not fundamental and may only arise when you go looking for them.  For all of the known fundamental particles, there is an associated quantum field.  There is an electron field, a neutrino field, and quark fields, W boson fields and Z boson fields. Particles arise through interactions among quantum fields. Matter is not basic; quantum fields are.  What exactly is a quantum field?  Who knows.  I don’t remember ever having felt, tasted, seen or smelled any if them. We can only characterize them by what they do and how they behave.  And empty space?  Forget it.  A constant boil of ephemeral basic virtual particles which come into existence out of nothing and go back into nothingness again.   There is no such thing as nothing.

As customary in these blogs, I will do my best to lay out my ideas in English without use of mathematical formulas.  However, for what I am seeking to discuss, natural language offers an extremely limited representational framework, bound by verbal distinctions that cannot really do justice to what exists.  If I could use the mathematical tools of QM, it is possible I might do better.  However even with these I might not have a good enough vocabulary and grammar for the discussion,  If we were caterpillars or mice or armadillos or goldfish that could talk, we would have no base vocabulary that would allow us to start discussing trains, electricity, urban economics and TV, let alone black holes, relativity theory, tensor representations, quasars and neutrinos.   We are humans that can talk, and our science has given us many distinctions about the universe including these, just in the last century or so.  But who knows what new distinctions will emerge that enable us to discuss IRC with more clarity and precision?   Until we have such distinctions we will have to lean heavily on metaphors, as I often do here.  If you do happen to be familiar with the mathematics of QM, however, I do here strongly suggest you review presentations that support the conclusions of this blog entry.  I list  couple of examples below.

IRC and quantum information theory

How well is IRC standing up in the light of more recent developments in Quantum Mechanics such as those discussed above?  I would say very well, near as I can tell.  I focus particularly on the newer perspective of viewing QM not about the underlying workings of the universe but rather, seeing QM as a branch of information theory, a framework embodying a set of rules relating to how we can get information about certain phenomena going on in the universe.  You can get this viewpoint in a YouTube video presentation by Philip Ball at a presentation to the Royal Institution at And in multiple writings by Christoger Fuchs (see  This viewpoint, about which I say more below, is quite accommodating to IRC as well as QM.  In fact, instead of trying to make IRC look more than QM, it is a framework that says that QM is a form of IRC.  This makes sense: what is fundamental is IRC.  QM offers calculation machinery applicable in general for IRC but macroscopic non-coherent systems are too complex for the machinery to be used.  For those systems we can depend on the familiar mechanisms of cause-and-and effect and conventional mechanics.  But let’s not kid ourselves: everything in ordinary reality consists of highly entangled systems of quantum wave functions.


The information revolution of the 20th century continuing in this century is completely dependent on quantum phenomena.  Without them we could not have computers, cell phones, lasers, TV displays tunneling diodes, communications as we know them and a host of other important developments in the current technosphere.  But to be clear, what we know that works is the mechanism of Quantum mechanics, namely calculations based on the Schrodinger equation and its extensions, for predicting practical quantum phenomena.  We can do this with remarkable accuracy, enabling a number of practical applications that we now take for granted.  The various interpretations of quantum physics (Copenhagen, multiple worlds, Kramer’s) highlighted in my treatise are not part of this working apparatus but rather serve as intellectual crutches to help us build images in human-familiar concepts of what might be going on in underlying physical reality, assuming that that exists at all.   That is, they are just fancy systems of metaphors.

In QM (and in IRC) We apply an observable operator (usually a measurement such as for position or momentum of a particle) and what we observe can only be eigenvalues of the observables we apply. (“In quantum mechanics, an “eigenstate” of an operator is a state that will yield a certain value when the operator is measured. The eigenvalues of each eigenstate correspond to the allowable values of the quantity being measured” For a more precise mathematical characterization, you can see this reference) A-priori, we may only know a probability distribution of the possible outcomes (ex.  That the spin of a particle may be 1 or 0 with equal probability.)  It is intellectually misleading to say as is popular that before we measure the particle is in a superpositiosn of two states , 0 and 1.  In fact we have no information on the state of the spin of the particle before the measurement, other than if we make a measurement, it will be either 0 or 1 with equal probability.

Thus, we humans as observers are key for the workings of quantum mechanics.   Eigenvalues may or may not be probabilistically distributed.  And further, the very process of making observations may affect what is observed.  The mathematical apparatus of Quantum mechanics does not pretend to tell us what is going on in an underlying reality.  Quantum theory interpretations attempt to do that, to assist us to understand quantum phenomena in more familiar human conceptual frameworks.  QM is a theory of how our knowledge of the world changes when we intervene in it (Philip Ball  The quantum wave function tells us only what we might expect to find if we make a measurement.  What is observed is entirely a function of what operators are applied.  Results of measurements need not be consistent in a classical sense.  In IRC terms where QM operators correspond to unbound intentions. What we observe, what happens is a function of the intention.

“Chris Fuchs:  The Activating Observer: Resource Material for a Paulian/Wheelerish Conception of Nature
(PDF file, presently 733 KB, 188 pages, not ready for viewing yet)

This is the third and final installment of three in the Cerro Grande Fire Series. It reflects the following thought. What has always struck me as most wonderful in quantum mechanics is its indication of how our world may be more malleable than was thought in classical times. With our experimental interventions into nature, we—in the capacity of physical systems and nothing more—may have the opportunity to shape the world in unforeseen and perhaps significant ways. This document catalogs and annotates various materials exploring this idea, from the potentially deeply profound to the just-plain silly. Personally I suspect many of the works cited herein lean toward the profound, but that is an issue for science to decide. The 522 citations below are meant predominantly as historical tabulation and as motivation for such a future science.

The Oyster and the Quantum
(PowerPoint, 2,768 KB, 56 slides)

I say no interpretation of quantum mechanics is worth its salt unless it raises as many technical questions as it answers philosophical ones. In this talk, I hope to convey the essence of a salty, if not downright briny, point of view about quantum theory: The deepest truth of quantum information and computing is that our world is a world wildly sensitive to the touch. When we irritate it in the right way, the result is a pearl. The speculation is that this sensitivity alone gives rise to the whole show, with the quantum calculus portraying the best shot we can take at making predictions in such a world. True to form, I ask more questions than I know how to answer. However, along the way, I give a variant of Gleason’s theorem that works even for rational and two-dimensional Hilbert spaces, give another variant of Gleason’s theorem that gives rise to the tensor-product rule for combining quantum systems, and finally derive a new form for expressing how quantum states change upon the action of a measurement.”

If you are among the few that can follow Dirac notations and the mathematics of QM, I strongly suggest you review Fuchs’ Powerpoint presentation at The Oyster and the Quantum. This makes a strong case for QM and IRC being information theories and supports other assertions I am making here.


IRC is not necessarily about changing the course of the universe, whatever that could mean.  Rather, it is a framework for a human being to interact with the universe in a way hopefully to observe a desired outcome of an intention.  In this regard it can be viewed as an information theory of knowledge rather than as a way of molding underlying reality.    An intention in IRC plays the same role as an observation in QM. Outcomes of IRC are entirely functions of the intentions applied.  Just as for QM, we can say IRC is a theory of how our knowledge of the world changes when we intervene in it. 

Differences between IRC and QM

In essence, Fuchs and others as quoted above seem to be saying that QM is part of IRC.  This leads me to discuss the obvious differences between QM and IRC.

Scale:  The mathematical apparatus QM seems to deal with sub-nuclear sized particles,  True, but strong quantum effects show up at normal human scales, such as in everyday electronics.  IRC seems to apply at every macroscopic scale.

Coherence:  Quantum effects show up in coherent systems such as in a laser beam of photons or super-cooled superconducting liquid.  IRC applies to highly complex systems where any trace of coherency is lost. Quantum coherence and quantum entanglement appear to be closely related concepts and perhaps simply describe different aspects of the same phenomena.  See this article.

Popular explanations of QM make statements such as “Quantum mechanics applies only at sub-nuclear scales when there is little entanglement and much coherence.  Otherwise classical mechanics applies.”  This is very misleading.  It is much more accurate to say “All systems behave according to the laws of QM, more accurately according to the laws of quantum field theory. At larger scales of reality where there is a great deal of decoherence (entanglement), classical mechanics provide excellent predictive approximations.  Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are not competitors with some mysterious crossover point of scale where one gives way to the other. 

Operators:  An Operator in QM corresponds to a physical experiment that leads to a measurement.  The value of that measurement beforehand can be predicted by the distribution of its eigenvalues and afterwards is fixed by the value of the observation.

Eigenvalues of some IRC intentions are known – either the intention as stated is realized or not.  The outcome of the experiment is what is observed by the intention formulator.

Physicality:  In QM, it may be necessary to manipulate a physical apparatus to initiate an operator.  This could be very complicated.  In IRC, formulation of a clear unbounded intention appears to be all that is needed.  How this works physically is less-clear than for measuring the position of an electron.  The detection measurement is whether the IRC formulator experiences realization of the intention.

Weak causality and IRC in the multiple worlds interpretation (MWI)

Here is another pass as to how IRC works, as a personal information theory about how we know the universe with reference to the MWI.  According to the MWI, if anything T can possibly happen, in some universes, T does happen.  I take the boundary condition of what can happen to being satisfaction of causality for macroscopic phenomena,  Specifically, I define weak causality as follows, using distinctions laid out in my treatise:

  • At any given time t1, an individual’s experience is in a manifold of multiple universes M, each wjth different pasts and futures. Only universes with pasts consistent with the individual’s experience record are included in M.    I have no universes in M where I have three arms, or in which the capital of Alabama is Moscow, or ones where my mother was a professional tightrope walker.  However, I have argued that a person’s experience record still leaves that person’s possible pasts vastly undetermined.  I do not know what love affairs my mother or father might have had.  A large multiplicity of universes may therefore exist in M containing different complexes of past events that are unknown to me but consistent with my experience record.  These can be “mined” by IRC to create a cause-and-effect chain that leads to materialization of an intended result.
  • For an intention I formulated at time t1, a condition of weak causality for I exists if there are universes in M in which past macroscopic events can create the results of the intention I according to ordinary laws of cause and effect for macroscopic entities. This is why results of hundreds of successful IRC interventions I have made over the years always after the fact, seemed to have arrived as a normal consequence of a plausible traceable chain of cause-and-effect events.
  • So, in the MWI, a successful IRC intention slides the intention formulator (IF) over into a submanifold of M, call it M’ where the information fed back to IF is what he or she wants to hear; the intention is satisfied. Put simply, the universe aims to please whenever it can. Never mind all those universes where the intention I is not satisfied.

Assuming IRC extends to all biological entities as I have argued, The last point is probably why so very very many conditions in the universe are life-sustaining.

Bringing it all together, in QM and IRC, there are

  • Observer (intention Formulator IF in IRC)
  • Responder (no good name for this, perhaps being itself)
  • A request for information (operator or experiment in QM, unbound intention in IRC)
  • A response (result of the experiment in QM, whether the intention is realized or not)

 “Magic” role of the Observer (Intention Formulator)

In the movie Big, a young boy made a request to an antique carnival fortune-telling machine, the kind with a case of polished dark wood and a head and torso doll effigy of a turbaned magician in a glass case.  The magician doll had the name Zoltar and he is dressed and looks like a Mongolian mystic.  His hands hover over a fortune-telling globe.  The boy expressed an intention to the machine “I want to be big.”  The magician moves its plaster head and hand, and its eyes lit up and the machine printed out a card saying “Your wish is granted.”  And the boy woke up the next day big, in the body of a 30 year-old (played by Tom Hanks) instead of that of a 12-year old.   Quite magical.  Especially in the movie because the machine was not even plugged in.  All for just a penny.  Later in the movie the awkward boy in the man’s body found the machine again, unplugged it, and wished himself back to his original 12-year old body.

Migod!  Can we simply mess with the universe that way?  Are all my writings on IRC Magical Thinking?   It is true that as a young boy 80 years ago I was fascinated by fortune-telling  machines like Zoltar, and you can still find a few of them in dusty corners of old arcades.  Each one is unique, with the dolls in the glassed boxes dressed and laid out a little differently.   Did they brainwash me?

Untitled-4  Untitled-3  Related image

Images source

You can still buy one of these iconic machines for your own basement or a poster of one.  See this link.

IRC would not work for the request made in the Big movie, for at least two reasons.  The first reason, as explained above, is impossible causality – there are no possible causal chains in ordinary reality for a person’s body to change overnight from that of a 12 year-old to that of a 30 year-old or back again.  The second reason, explained in my treatise, is quantum complementarity, a bit more subtle.  Time and energy are complementary variables satisfying a Heisenberg uncertainty inequality,  If you know the exact value of one in an interaction, you can know nothing about the other.  So even if you could get the universe to muster the energy for the age shift, getting the universe to make the shift overnight is just not plausible. But it is completely ordinary for the universe to shift someone to an 18 year-older body.  It just takes 18 years.  And there is no going back.


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.”

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. I cite a number of relevant quotes from key thinkers that are directly applicable to my thesis.
  6. 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.


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.


Looking from the viewpoint of what our best current science tells us:

  1. 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? 
  2. 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?
  3. 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. 
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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.


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.


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

“The truth is, everyone is confused by quantum physics.” ― David WaltonSuperposition

“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 KhanThrough 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 MichelMoving 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 BaradMeeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning

“Where there is no consciousness, there is no time.”  ― Wayne Gerard TrotmanKaya Abaniah and the Father of the Forest

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 McTaggartThe 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


You can modulate the past to get what you want in the future.   

A personal look by Vince Giuliano.    Feb. 9, 2017

Repeatedly and with great consistency, during most of my life I have somehow managed to create my own realities, key aspects of the world I live in.  I have done this not just through hard work but also through the power of focused intention.  The process has led me to believe that we live in worlds of our own creation based on our beliefs and intentions.  I call the process Intentional Reality Creation (IRC).   IRC often seem to work through completely mystical means. In the wake of my focused intention, events and Circumstances completely beyond my control somehow seem to conspire to create what I deeply want.    It also works to create things against great odds to the contrary.  Yet, after the fact there appears to be a complete causal chain for the appearance of the creation, wiping away any element of mystery.  What is going on?

The idea IRC is far from new; intention-based reality creation has long been practiced by Buddhist monks and a version of it is central to ancient Jainism.  In all of the spiritual traditions embodying the concept of karma, intent plays a central and definitive role.  Practice of IRC is probably as old as humankind.   Today, practice of forms of IRC is advocated by a diverse collection of new age philosophers like Wayne Dyed, Werner Erhardt, Harry Palmer, Lynne McTaggart and many psychics.  IRC is a practice in the Noetic Sciences, and Dan Brown’s book The Lost Symbol has a characters that practices it.  What is new here and in my writings is a decent explanation compatible with science of how it works.

IRC has traditionally been seen as a spiritual practice that works through mystical means probably inscrutable to science.  I have not been satisfied with leaving it at that.   On the one hand I am a scientist at heart and by training and am uncomfortable with mystical or religious explanations.  On the other hand, I have practiced IRC almost all of my life and have developed trust that it really works.  So, I started to think hard about IRC some 50 years ago and begin making notes about how it might work in a way compatible with what we know about science and how the universe works.  The result has been the evolution of a treatise On Being and Creation which is available on my website  I have continued to tweak this treatise as new insights have emerged.  I suggest that IRC works like a macroscopic form of quantum mechanics, basically according to the same rules and principles found there.  The arguments in the treatise are complex.  I provide a simplified explanation here leaving out the more-technical science.

Basically, understanding IRC turns our world views of reality and time inside-out and upside down, so much as to seem ridiculous.  The same happened in the world of subatomic physics with quantum theory, starting over 100 years ago.  Physicists including Einstein were very upset with the explanations given for quantum physics for they made no sense from the viewpoint of our ordinary experience.  Particles can be multiple places at once, particles are sometimes waves, hypothesized quantum waves can go backward as well as forward in time.  According to one framework of explanations (the Copenhagen interpretation), objects like particles exist in multiple states characterized by a probability distribution until they are actually observed.  The probability of an outcome of a measurement is determined by as wave function which specifies a probability distribution.  Reality does not materialize until it is observed.  The famous Schrodinger’s cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time.  Only when the box is opened does the cat settle down being either dead or alive.  According to another framework of explanation for quantum effects (the multiple-universe theory), events occur in an infinity of universes and an observation selects a sub-infinity of universes where the observed result is manifested.   None of these theories make everyday sense but quantum theory works and is responsible for many of our achievements in science and technology.

In my treatise I have examined IRC from the viewpoint of three different frameworks for looking at quantum physics:  the Copenhagen interpretation, the multiple universe framework and John Cramer’s transactional interpretation.  These frameworks provide different ways for looking at the strange phenomena of quantum mechanics and they work equally well for looking at the strange phenomena of Intention-based reality creation. The explanation for IRC provided here is a partial and simplified hybrid of frameworks.

In my view IRC does not require meditation, prayer, special rituals or extraordinary concentration or a lot of time.  If I want to create X, all it takes is for me declaring to myself “In the universe in which I live, X exists,” but I have to mean it and believe it without mental reservations or fingers crossed.  That’s all there is to it.  Thus, IRC happens in an instant when a person shifts himself or herself into a set of universes where that intention is destined to be manifest.  The new set of universes is infinitely large and is a subset of the infinite set of universes the person was in just before the declaration.  The shift happens instantaneously though it may take some for the desired reality creation to become manifest.  For example, in 1953 I had dropped out of a Master’s Degree program with the grades of incomplete in six out of the 8 courses I was taken being lapsed.  In the army as a private at the time, I formulated an intention to go to Harvard, Yale or Princeton to study for a Ph.D. with a full scholarship.  At the moment I was not in a position to even think about applying to any of those schools.  But the specified reality became manifest only 3 years later when I was admitted to a Ph.D. program at Harvard with a generous scholarship.

The physics of creating via IRC

According to one quantum physics interpretation applied to IRC (Cramer’s), at time of creation of an IRC, a quantum wave goes out forward in time and a conjugate wave propagates backwards in time, both of which are seeking to line up circumstances to be compatible with the creation.  The backwards-traveling wave finds all kinds of things and events in the past that the formulator of the IRC may or may not know about that will eventually contribute to a causal chain that makes the creation inevitable.  When a backwards-traveling wave encounters an event or circumstance that can further the creation, a forward-traveling confirmation wave is generated.  Similarly, a forward-traveling wave, moving at the speed of light seeks out future events that will further the creation, and sends confirming waves backwards in time.  All those waves combine at the instant of creation, saying that the creation is a done deal.  The deal is done though may require some time, even years, for full existence of the intended creation to be manifest.

Taking  my example of getting into a Ph.D. program, what did the backward-traveling wave find in my past and present?  They included:

  • My reading and being impressed by an article in Popular Science about a professor Howard Aiden who had built a “giant brain” at Harvard.  I read this in 1943 when I was a high school Junior.
  • My excellent undergraduate performance and reputation of being a whiz-kid in mathematics at the University of Michigan
  • Certain world-class mathematicians, physicists and philosophers who I had studied with who were willing to give me first-class personal endorsements
  • The fact that I had practical experience with computers starting in 1952 on one of the very first general-purpose machines in operation

The forward-traveling wave found many events yet-to-happen including

  • A willingness of the University of Michigan administration to re-instate my lapsed incompletes
  • A willingness of my army superiors to give me more than half time away from my army duties time to finish my college incompletes
  • Willingness of the army to send me to the University of Delaware to take additional graduate courses
  • Availability of Professor Howard Aiken at the time I happened to go to find him and his willingness to speak to me. Aiken is the grand old man of computers who built and operated the Harvard Mark I, the first general purpose computer during World War II.  Out of the blue, I asked Aiken to take me as a graduate student and give me a generous scholarship, transferring my acceptance at Harvard from the mathematics department to his.  I said I saw computers as a world-transforming technology and told Aiken I would pursue a long career in this area making many important contributions.  Aiken said simply “yes,” and over many years I did what I said I would do to him.

At the moment in 1953 when I formulated the intention to go to Harvard, Yale or Princeton to study for a Ph.D. with a full scholarship, I had no idea whatsoever how that result could come about.  In terms of the reality-creation process, quantum waves went out, backwards in time to at least 1943, and forwards to 1959 when I graduated with the Ph. D. and beyond.  The whole creation was a done-deal right when I formulated the intention though I did not know how it would play out.  While the process was playing out, I was accepted as a Ph.D.  student by all three of these universities, and before switching to computer science after meeting Aiken, the mathematics departments at Yale and Harvard get into a competitive battle raising their scholarship offers to try to get me.

IRC creations can be nested in other creations.  In fact, I can clearly remember the piles of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines I hoarded as a kid.  I read the article about Aiken and Giant Brains multiple times in 1943 and then-and-there firmly decided and declared “I will be part of that giant brain revolution.”  And I was.

I can think of dozens of important personal IRC creations that have together combined to shape my life as it is, including one just a few days ago.  I list a few here that illustrate the role of the past as well as the future in the IRC process and that show how profoundly IRC has affected my life

1,  Getting to be a university professor without passing go

After receiving my Ph. D. from Harvard in 1959 I took a job with the Arthur D. Little Inc, consulting firm, fulfilling an earlier deliberate intention to become an ace scientist-businessman consultant.  My work, again by intention, involved dividing my time between basic research on problems of artificial intelligence and practical business consulting with major corporations of how to incorporate computers into their businesses.  It was a very productive period from both viewpoints. I cranked out numerous scientific publications and was often invited to speak at international conferences. And from time to time I found myself sitting in corporate boardrooms.   Seeing my success, near the end of 1966 I begin thinking “If I am so smart, why aren’t I at a major university where my other scientific colleagues are.”  So I formed the intention to be a University professor.  But I didn’t want to have to claw myself up through the academic ranks.  It usually took fifteen years of very hard work and faculty politics to go from Instructor to Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, to Full Professor.  Most who entered this teach-like-crazy and publish-or-parish ladder never made it to the top and the pay did not get decent until the end of the process.  My thought was “screw that.”  My intention was to start out as a full professor with excellent pay.

I shared this intention with only a couple of people, one being a blind scientist I knew at Bell Laboratories.   I did not put out any resumes or publicize the intention in any way.  One day a couple of months later I “happened” to get two telephone calls out of the blue.  One was from a new Provost at the State University of New York in Buffalo inviting me to come there to interview for a position as Professor and Dean of an intended new graduate school of library and information science.  It just “happened” to be that my profile seemed to match what they were looking for. The other call was from Case University which “happened” to merging with Western Reserve University in Cleveland.  They where they were looking for a new Dean for the new combined school of Business and Management Science and again “happened” to think I might be a good man for the job.  They also asked me to come out for an interview.  I set up back-to-back day visits with both Universities in a few weeks.  I choose the Buffalo opportunity as the better one for me.  It came with a Deanship and a Full Professorship with tenure.  I asked for a higher salary than I was getting from consulting, one that would make me one of the highest-paid people on campus.  And they gave it to me.  They offered me the position and I took it.  There is a lot more to this story including a later intention to leave the university and go back into the world where I could make a bigger difference.  Enough to say that my intention fully materialized into reality.

2.  Creating a great extended family

In 1971 I had an incredible family and personal intimacy mess on my hands.  I was married to my second wife and was raising four children with her.  I had divorced my first wife with whom I had had another two children.  My second wife was jealous of the time spent with the children sired with my first wife.  A lover, a woman who would become my third wife, had for several years been living in the house with me, my second wife and that family that included four children.  A fourth woman friend of mine showed up with a baby that I had sired; she was to become my fourth wife and present.  Then my third wife decided to have another baby with me and I concurred.  I loved all of these women and children.  I was telling the truth to everyone but there was a lot of anger and distrust among the three women. And at the time I was regularly sleeping with each of them.  Earlier I had lied a lot.  How could I sort it out so it would work?  How could I fulfill my commitment to be a father fully present while the two new small children were raised?

Fortunately, by then I already knew about IRC and put it to work.  I formed an unbounded intention to create a harmonious extended family characterized by love, compassion and generosity – one that works for everybody.  Within three or four years that family materialized and has endured since.  We have regularly celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays with all the extended family members who live in our part of the country, all my wives and children past and present and their children and loved ones.  There is friendship and love all around, and no remaining conflict.  We brought a large house in the suburbs in 1985.  My wife and our son and I lived on one floor, my third wife and my son with her lived on the second floor.  We shared many dinner and family events as an extended family.  Both my boys grew up living with their father and mother and are now close brothers as adults. They are off on their own, living close-by, happily married and each has two wonderful grandchildren.  The two mothers and I remain in the family house as a close supportive unit, enjoying frequent and warm contact with our son’s families and our four grandchildren.

People ask me “How did you pull that off Vince?”  I didn’t pull anything off.  I created an unbounded intention that served the interest of all concerned, and the results of the intention materialized.  A lot had to do with what I did to make this possible, but a lot more had to do with what people would call “good fortune” and the generosity of the women concerned.   My intentions with respect to family and intimacy have existed as reality since about 1973.

3.  Creating ideal work with my wife

In 1993 my job as Chief Scientist of a software company was coming to an end and I was doing a lot of thinking about what I might want to do next.  I had a number of discussions about this with my wife Melody and we decided it would be very nice if we could work together as a team and if our work could involve significant travel in Latin America.  Why Latin America?  Because it fascinated us though our exposure to it had been very minimal.  We had spent a couple of days in Puerto Rico and had made a short excursion into Mexico from San Diego.  So I formulated an unbounded intention, essentially “Melody and I will do interesting work together in Latin America for which we will be well paid.  And this will allow us travel together frequently to new and interesting places there.”  I shared this intention with Melody and formulated it with a lot more detail.  From the notes I made at the time: “The work should serve to bring balance to my life, and should not pose serious conflicts with my general intentions and goals.  Thus, it should involve some travel, but not prolonged periods of work away from home.”  “The assignments should provide me with variety, good people to interact with in interesting ways, and intellectual challenge.”  “The number of days worked and the conditions of the work should match my internal needs for balance – balance between private creative work, interacting with others, travel and being home, working and being with family members, working for pay and playing and creating with music, etc.” “I should work between 75 and 150 days per year (work being days of consulting or consulting marketing) with average income per day of $1,000.”  These quotes are lifted unedited from a 1994-1995 document I wrote recording the original intention.  All these details specified in the intention showed up in the reality created by the intention.

I had no idea about how this intention could be realized when I formulated it. Neither of us knew any Spanish or Portuguese.  Neither of us had any work contacts in Latin America or had any inkling of what we actually could do there.  We did not know the cultures or the countries.  It took about a year for the intention to materialize into reality, in a completely unplanned and “lucky” way.  I “happened” to write a paper about the successes and failures of newspapers creating online editions (a pioneering topic in 1993) and “happened” to send a copy to Tony Oettinger, my Ph.D. thesis advisor many decades before.  Tony “happened” to share my paper with a visiting Spanish Scholar Juan Antonio Giner who “happened” to be the director of Innovation, a Spanish consulting group which “happened” to have major newspaper and magazine company clients throughout Latin America and in Spain.  Juan Antonio contacted me and we had lunch in the Harvard Faculty Club and it soon became clear that I “happened” to have a major message for his Latin American Newspaper clients:  “Now is the time for you to take your newspaper online.”  And I “happened” to have credibility and background to deliver that message (I had “happened” to have been a Vice President of a major US newspaper chain subsidiary, Times Mirror) and I “happened” to have the depth of background in online services and consulting skills to allow me to assist those newspapers to go online.  Finally, with the emergence of the Internet being just then, it “happened” to be a good time to excite the Latin American publishers about Internet and pursue consulting studies with them that actually helped them build their online services.

The outcome was full realization of my intention.  Melody and I were a small consulting team that traveled and did consulting projects in Latin America and Spain for about a 10 year period.  I traveled, worked and lectured in Brazil, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Chile, Paraguay, Uraguay, Argentina and Spain and Italy.  For several years we made more money than I had been earning in my previous regular jobs.  The projects involved frequent travel and Melody accompanied me on many trips  I also had an intention going at the time to have a rich home life and raise my two boys.  So the projects involved a lot of our work being done from home.  My intention materialized reality to every element of detail specified.

You are probably getting the point by now that all of these stories of realized intentions can be explained away (after-the-fact) as having occurred by accident and good fortune.  True.  That is how IRC works.  Waves go backward and forward in time to line up events and circumstances to lead the intended creation to occur as a result of normal “luck” and cause-and-effect.  There is nothing mysterious about the chain of events leading up to a creation or the creation itself after it happens.  What is amazing is that such chains can be triggered by simple intentionality.  After creating a reality by intention, it is completely explainable by chains of cause and effect.

4.  Creating a Connection to my grandfather’s Family

Here is another example.  In late 2006 I decided I would like to do something with my two youngest sons, Joe 27 and Mike 29 that brought us closer and perhaps connects them with our family history in some way.  My grandparents were from Italy, I have an Italian name and I thought in terms of Italy and being Italian.  So, I invited Mike and Joe to accompany me to a trip to Italy in the summer of 2007.  They accepted and we had discussions about where we might go.  Joe thought it might be great visiting the great cities, museums and cathedrals of the North – Venice, Florence, Padua, Milan and the like.  At first I agreed, I had visited Italy a few times over the years and the whole family visited there when the boys were in their early teens.  But none of this travel took me much further South than Naples.

We agreed to research the possibilities further.  However I found myself formulating a clear intention to connect us all more directly with our family roots – to discover whether there are any Giulianos directly related to my grandfather and if so connect with those people while sharing the experience with my sons.  My grandfather was born and raised in Calabria, the southernmost province in mainland Italy.  So my intention was to discover what the part of my patrimonial family there still is in Calabria and get us into relationship with and visit that family branch.  When I made the intention I had no idea of how to proceed.  I knew my grandfather was born around 1880 in a town in Calabria called Squillace, but that was about it.  I had no documents that could help, so I thought.  I had never been personally in contact with any relative in Calabria and had no idea whether any existed or if so where.  The name Giuliano is almost as common in Italy as Jones is here.  So that by-itself did not provide much of a basis for discovery.  My grandfather died fifty years ago and only he knew who to look for where.

Here is what happened after declaring the intention.  I half-heartedly started searching for Giuliano relatives in Calabria on Internet in Italian public records and genealogy sites.  I came up with tons and tons of Giulianos but none were right.  The trail remained stone cold.  Then one evening my eye wandered up from my computer screen to the wall behind it.  There happened to be hanging my Grandfather’s 1902 Honorable Discharge certificate when he finished his service with the Italian Army.  My cousin had given this to me from my grandfather’s remains years ago. The certificate has been hanging on my wall for many many years.  Moving my head a bit I can see the document hanging there now as I write this.  I got up to look at the document and discovered I needed a magnifying glass to read the hand-scrawled writing.  The document says my grandfather was discharged in from the Italian army in 1902.  Later my wife suggested that I open up the sealed frame and see if the document had anything more to say.  Taking the document out of the frame, we saw that the back of it his residence at the time was listed as in San Pietro a Maida.  With the aid of Google World, I discovered San Pietro Maida is a town of 3,500 inhabitants nestled in the hills of central Calabria, in the arch of the foot of Italy.  I had never heard of this town before.  Internet at the time revealed no way to contact the town government by e-mail so I wrote a snail-mail message in Italian addressed to the mayor.  I asked the mayor if he knew of anyone in the town government who could give me any assistance in identifying any relatives of mine who were still there.  There was no answer.  But early one morning I received a phone call from somebody who spoke only Italian.  We could talk because I happened to have learned a fair amount of Italian as a youth and in the course of my travels.  The person identified himself as Nicola Giuliano.  He happened to be The Vice Mayor of San Pietro a Maida and the Mayor had handed my letter to him.  In the course of further discussions and e-mails we also established he happened to be as close a cousin as I could possibly have in Calabria.  His grandfather and my grandfather were brothers.

Nicola also happened to be warm and welcoming of a relationship with me and my sons and Joe and Mike and I ended up staying at his house in San Pietro a Maida.  Nicola put us in touch with a rich network of other Giuliano cousins who happened to be either in town or visiting.  The first evening we arrived Nicola had happened to have arranged a Giuliano family reunion of 96 people in a local restaurant.  I happened to be warmly welcomed as the surrogate of my grandfather with the same name who had left the town 105 years earlier.  Nicola and I happened to be able to forge a powerful bond together.  The trip made and left a powerful emotional impact, and now Joe, Mike and I are in touch with a previously-unknown branch of the family in Calabria.  Melody, my wife, and I visited there again in May 2008 and Nicola and Rosa his wife came to Boston for my 80th birthday in November 2008.  It’s crazy-wonderful.  The intention has fully materialized into reality.

From a common-sense viewpoint what was involved here was a combination of intentionality and luck, call it happenstance.  Was it that, or the creation of an intended reality?  I think it was both. The intentionality expresses itself through what looks after-the-fact as luck and propitious circumstances. It’s always that way.  In quantum physics, we would say that reality creation preserves causality.

5.  Creating myself as an eminent longevity scientist

In 1994 I formulated an intention to live in good health until the age of 235, an intention that is still working its way into manifestation. Projecting success of this intention left open the question of what I was going to pursue as a career over the next several decades. It was nice being a computer artist for a few years after my Internet-consulting career but by late 2005 I wanted to devote my energies to a career that was more intellectually challenging and that had greater social impact. In 2006 I formulated a clear intention to enter a new career as a longevity scientist, requiring that I create myself as a highly-informed and internationally-known and respected professional in that area. In my previous careers I had enjoyed a reputation as a significant contributor and was frequently asked to speak at international conferences.  I wanted that for starters in my new career too.  I also wanted sufficient financial compensation to support my family as an aspect of my new career.  From a conventional wisdom viewpoint these outcome were highly unlikely because at the time a) I had no background whatsoever in the life sciences. I had not even taken a high school biology class, b) I did not at that time have enough background to be able to read many key journal articles related to the multiple facets of the aging sciences, c) I had no degrees or accreditation normally required for recognition or functioning in the highly structured academic areas concerned, and d) I was already 76 years old, too old given the conventional wisdom that “an old dog cannot learn new tricks.” An in-depth background in biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, cell processes, genomics, protein dynamics and other arcane areas seemed to be required.

Going back to college and graduate school would have required 6-8 years for me to take the necessary courses and get the necessary degrees.  And that would have still left me as a nobody in longevity science.  Further, I would have been left out of participating in the field during critical early years of its development.  Yet another time, my reaction was “screw that.”  I choose a different route, forming a clear intention in 2008 to become a longevity scientist, an important contributor for understanding what evolving science says about lifespans, and a contributor  to development of interventions that can help us lead longer, healthier lives.

As of now nine years later, this creation is rapidly unfolding in a most gratifying way. I can read and actually understand important scientific publications related to the multiple facets of aging.  I generate a highly popular blog now containing over four hundred technical treatises I have written on aspects of longevity science and an overall treatise on longevity science. These websites attract over 3,000 unique readers a day and I have an estimated international following of over 100,000.  Among over 60,000 registered subscribers are scientists, science students and intellectuals who want to do have access to my historical articles.  I have developed proposed interesting and unique theories related to life extension, developed close collegial professional relationships, have offered a number of invitational presentations at professional conclaves including keynote presentations, have received a “scientist of the year” award, have created You Tube longevity science presentations, and have appeared in the movie To Age or Not to Age.  Though the financial compensation component of this intention is not fully manifest yet, the overall creation is well on its way to being there. This particular creation has involved both application of the creative process of intentionality and hard work on my part. But being a competent hard-working longevity scientist is part of what I set out to create.

A number of other compelling personal reality-creating stories come to mind but these are sufficient to make my points.  There are lots of examples of smaller creations too.

Characteristics of IRC 

Some of the characteristics of all the successful reality-creating initiatives I have taken are:

  • Looking forward from when I made the intention, I had no inkling of how the intention could be realized. There was no action plan, approach, no notion of how or where to get into action, only pure intentionality.  The universe subsequently provided the clues that guided me into action.

Most strategic planning experts think that it is ridiculous to formulate an intention without some action plan to make it real.  They say things like “Setting a goal without an action plan is meaningless.”  The opposite is true for me.  The best approach has been to declare the “what” of the intention leaving the “how to” wide open.  And then let the universe guide me through whatever tortuous paths that are required to getting my intended results.

There is a good reason for this.  In the sense of quantum physics, the what of creation and the how of that creation are what are called complementary variables.  This means they satisfy a form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and completely specifying one makes the other one unknowable.  Specifying the what and leaving the how completely open makes the creation job a lot easier for the universe.   This is because there are generally vastly more ways to arrive at a result than ways I know about, can favor, or even imagine.

I think most failures of intentional reality creation are due to over-specificity of both what and how, violating this complementarity principle.  That is, intentions of the form: “I intend A so it will lead to B so I can have C leading to D.”  As an example, consider a 12 year old Roxbury MA inner-city boy who intends “I will become an ace basketball player so I will be invited to get on the Celtics team, so I will make a lot of money and be famous and then get what I want in life.”  Such an intention probably has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of success.  If the intention was simply “I intend to get what I want in life,” there would be a vast number of paths available for this to happen.

  • After declaring the intention all kinds of things started to happen: relevant unknown past events were discovered, “accidental” or unforeseen things “happen,” and other processes occur in the path of materializing my intention into reality. Events and circumstances and happenstances over which I have no control combine in unpredictable ways to help me get what I want and make the creation real. That is, the universe takes over the how to part for me.  Of course, once the universe reveals a path to realizing an intention, I can and do pitch in with supportive actions.  For example, I had to apply to the graduate schools to get into them.
  • Looking backwards from when an intention is already realized, it can always be seen that there was a cause-and-effect chain of circumstances happenings and situations that made the intention possible. Most people would leave it by saying: “He wanted something and by intelligence, hard work and luck he managed to get it.”    Right.  What seems to require a miracle before it happens is easily explained after it happens.  Why does it appear this way?  Because a new creation is made in the presence of profound set of prior creations, namely the laws of ordinary reality which include cause-and-effect.  If my historically-impossible creation of living healthily to age 235 is realized, I suspect most credit for that will be given to advances in science, not to my “crazy” 1994 reality-creation intention.  That is unless reality creation is much more acknowledged then in the future than it is now, another of my intended IRC creations

The past is undetermined

A person knows only a very tiny fraction of the past history that could affect him or her in the future.  What IRC does is select from a very large number of possible events and circumstances from the past and bring them forward into the present and future so as to contribute to a creation by cause-and-effect.  Take the intention of my discovering my relatives on Calibria as a simple example.  Without the intention, would I have ever opened up the ancient sealed frame on my study wall to read on the back of the document the name of my town my grandfather lived in before he left Italy in 1902?  Probably not.  Would I have even put the ancient document on my wall in the first place?  Quite possibly not.  Would I have buried that frame with hundreds of others in boxes and piles in my immense back attic?  Probably.  Moving to the less-known.  My cousin Nicola was Vice Mayor and known by the mayor long before I formulated my intention to locate relatives.  Is it ridiculous to think that my intention selected me into a subset of universes where Nicola was born, was Vice Mayor of San Pietro a Maida at the time and receptive to discovering a new cousin in the US?  Not according to the parallel universes explanation of IRC.

Another example was meeting Howard Aiken and getting into his program at Harvard.  At the time I was living in Detroit and visiting the Boston area for only a day.  Aiken was a very busy man who was usually traveling or engaged in meetings and appointments.  He just “happened” to be there when I called, “happened” to  agree to talk with me, some unknown graduate student candidate, and “happened” to agree to meet that day with me with only a half-hour later.  Was all of this simply due to luck?

As another example, take the intention that led to an Internet consulting career in Latin America.  You will recall that a person, Juan Antonio, showed up who had close ties with media companies throughout Latin America.  That was his part of his past.  And my intention was to work in Latin America.  Suppose my intention had been to work instead in Japan.  Would a Japanese gentleman with close ties to media organizations in Japan showed up instead?  And, the same question for China, Russia, Scandenavia, etc?  Tony Oettinger had people from all over the world associated with his international communications program.  Why did he give my paper to a Spaniard with Latin American ties instead of to someone else? He knew nothing about my intent that I would work with my wife in Latin America.  Again, now after the fact you can attribute all of this as being due to luck.  I think much more is involved and I call it intentional reality creation.

What is actually so?

“The world is flat.  Go too far and you will fall off of it.”

“The idea that there are invisible and undetectable waves passing all around us that can carry pictures and sounds is completely absurd and has no scientific basis.”

“What is done is done.  The past is done, immutable, you can’t change it.”

I am suggesting that these three statements agree with common sense but are equally false.  They do express what had been unquestioned truths grounded in tens of thousands of years of direct human experience.  Pythagoras challenged the idea that the world was flat in the 6th century.  But everybody could see that the world is essentially flat and that belief persisted for over a thousand years more.   I now challenge the fully accepted idea that the past is fixed and immutable.  Radio and television started out as “wireless telegraphy” in 1895.  Before that, the idea of invisible waves carrying messages at best would get you declared a nut; at worst it could get you burned at the stake.  And I expect this new view of past being different in accessible alternative universes might also take a long time to soak in.  I believe we can affect what has already happened within broad limits to get what we want now.  This is easier for me to stomach than might seem, since it has been one of the major approaches for explaining quantum physics for over 80 years now.

Making Scientific Sense of Intentional Reality Creation

Going back 40-50 years, as a younger man with a strong scientific background and training, my repeated personal successes at intentional reality creation were a major source of dissonance for me.  It was driving me a little nuts.  On the one hand, IRC seemed to be working superbly to help me get what I wanted out of life.  On the other hand doing this seemed to be like making fairy tale wishes or Voodoo magick spells -in both cases completely anti-scientific and irrational.  I could just intend and wish for something, and that’s all it would take to make it happen?   Got to be kidding.  I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or spiritualism and am not some savage medicine man 10,000 years ago.  I have a science Ph.D. from Harvard, write papers in science journals and have a professional reputation to protect.  I never have had much patience for Gurus, mediums, new-age mystics or parapsychologists.

Fortunately, a number of years earlier when I was studying for my Ph.D. at Harvard I had already come across an immense sea of irrationality that had similarly challenged my mind.  That sea of irrationality was in the very worst place.  Known as Quantum Mechanics it was smack in the middle of hard physical science.   Quantum physics was of interest to me since high school, and I selected it as a central area for my advanced graduate level studies.  I studied with giants of the field like Julian Schwinger and Wendell Furry at Harvard and studied relativity theory with Yuri Rainich at the University of Michigan.  Coming to terms with these extremely strange bodies of science was very difficult and the process rewired my brain in some crazy way.  I remember one morning when I woke up as a graduate student and realized that this had happened.  I had confronted the fact that reality on the deepest level is not at all what it seems to be.  My faith in singular objective reality had been completely crushed.  And it remains crushed still.

A central insight about IRC happened later, about 50 years ago when I was in my 30s.  I put together that the models of reality long-used to explain quantum mechanics could also be used to explain IRC.   I did not have to rewire my brain a second time to see how IRC can be compatible with what is known in science! I started making paper notes about IRC for my own use then and continued this practice accumulating these notes through the years.

Desiring to share these insights and drawing on these notes, I wrote the first complete draft of my treatise On Being and Creation in August 1990.  And I have re-written and expanded that treatise numerous times since, publishing versions of it on my Writings Site since about 1994.  The latest version was published in January 2017.

There is much more to say about intentional reality creating than what I can include in this shorter more-personal note.  If you are interested I suggest you go to the treatise, a click away if you are online.  Here is the Chapter guide for it:

PREAMBLE – Winners and losers in life and the difference between causation and intention-based creation.

I.  OUR UNIVERSE, SCIENCE, AND CREATION– A general discussion relating to both science and philosophy that provides background for the principles of reality creation and introduces key distinctions including our universe, everything-nothing, source and creation.  What is believed to be known about the creation of our universe.  Why personal reality creation is no stranger than quantum physics, and that the same models of reality can be used to explain both.

II.  OUR UNIVERSE, SCIENCE, AND CREATION – Delves deeper into the relationships between the philosophical underpinnings of personal reality creation and science.  The extremely strange nature of reality at the fundamental level as fully acknowledged by science but unknown to most.  The limits of our understanding of reality based on our perceptual capabilities which are evolved from those of our primate ancestors.  Basic paradoxes and unanswered questions in science.  Emergence in basic physics and cosmology of multiple universe interpretations.

III.  A MODEL FOR PERSONAL CREATION OF REALITY –   More key distinctions including consciousnessbeings and experience records. Ordinary and extraordinary ways for determining the future. Causation vs. intention-based creation.

IV.   CREATION AND UNIVERSES – About reality. Under-determination of the past, the act of creation, multiple universes and creation, introduction to macroscopic reality creation (MRC) and quantum physics. (Note: MRC in that document is the same as IRC in this document)

V.  INTRODUCTION TO MACROSCOPIC REALITY CREATION AND QUANTUM PHYSICS – Duality, uncertainty, complementarity, non-locality, entanglement and interference as properties of quantum systems.  Applicable for MRC as well.  Limits and conditions of creation.

VI.  SOME PERSONAL REALITY CREATION ADVENTURES  – Some stories of personal MRC from my life.  Characteristics of the creation process.

VII.  THE HOW-TO OF CREATION  – The very simple process of creation.

VIII.  PURPOSE OF LIFE AND MORALITY  – Relating to my personal ethics, morality and spirituality.  Winners and losers in life, about good and evil, entropy as related to good and evil, purpose of the universe, my mission in life, playing to win in life.

IX.  MACROSCOPIC REALITY CREATION IN THE CRAMER TRANSACTIONAL INTERACTION INTERPRETATION  – Quantum physics vs interpretation of quantum physics, and how the TI interpretation works.  More technical.

X.  PENROSE-HAMEROFF PHYSICAL BASIS FOR REALITY CREATION  – A possible explanation for how conscious acts of creation can generate powerful quantum waves in terms of quantum biology, quantum computers in the brain with “coherence states” which create consciousness, central points of this theory.

Quantum physics has enabled countless technological advances that we benefit from every day –  our cell phones, TVs, worldwide communications, MRI machines, solar and nuclear energy, lasers, tasers and masers, space satellites and explorations – the list goes on and on.  Yet quantum physics makes no sense.  So, the conventional wisdom for over 80 years has been to tell wondering intellectuals “Just shut up and use the formulas.”  The results of doing so have been of remarkable accuracy, consistency and usefulness.

Perhaps personal reality creation should be viewed the same way “OK, it makes no sense to you.  Just shut up and use the simple intentional reality creation procedure to get what you want in life.”  The point of my treatise is that the procedure working can be perfectly compatible with science, although inherently “unprovable” using the scientific method.  Numbers can’t be proved by the scientific method either by the way, though science would be nowhere without them.

Welcome to the new being and creation blog on Intentional Reality Creation (IRC)

This is the post excerpt.



In response to recent expressions of interest, I have decided to launch this blog on Intentional Reality Creation (IRC).  Intentional Reality Creation is the name I have given to a personal practice I have used in most of my life to bring into being situations I intend to exist.  This works basically through the power of focused intention – and without necessarily having to do anything or ask anybody else to do anything to bring those situations into existence.

Sounds mystical?  It’s not.  Wishful thinking?  It’s a lot more than that.  Not explainable by science?  No; its highly explainable with a sophisticated scientific framework underpinning it.  Not practical?  Actually it has worked extremely well in my life.  A religious idea?  Not for me though perhaps so for some.  A highly spiritual practice?  For some, not for me.  Very difficult to do?  No. Actually very easy.  Requires a lot of training?  Nope, hardly any at all.  Cleary a lot of explaining is needed to make this all plausible in the face of seemingly well-deserved skepticism.

And a lot of explaining I have done.  I first wrote a treatise on this subject On Being and Creation back in 1990.  I published this document online back in 2008 and have updated and expanded it several times since, the latest version published in April 2017.  That treatise is now book-length and I invite curious users to read it.   I have also offered webcasts on the subject and have written companion articles that further explain and explore the topic.  An initial two of these articles follow as the first entries in this blog. The first of these What’s Already Done Ins’t Necessarily Done Yet provides an easier faster introduction to IRC and my involvement in the topic than going through the treatise.  It also tells a few of my personal reality-creating stories.   The second of these articles Shit Doesn’t Just Happen explores fascinating aspects of IRC beyond those treated in the treatise.

Happy reading!  And I invite readers to chime in with their own commentaries.