“To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come.” – Hamlet (III, i)
At this time of year the sun turns north and the promise of longer days and warmth loom on the distant horizon. Naturally, we begin charting our course towards spring. With that come goals and objectives we hope to achieve.
Interestingly, this time of year happens to coincide with this last entry on my principles for success. The article here is about desire or rather intent. Desire is the chief motivator. It is what moves us to action and without it there would be no activity. How are we to understand desire or intent and how does it move the world and us? Do we have a say in it whatsoever?
Most of us would adamantly insist that we do have a choice. The very idea of absolute determinism tears the fabric of our social justice apart and strikes at the heart of meaning in our lives. It reminds me of a phrase I saw on a waiter’s t-shirt once that said, “Any social relevance is purely accidental”. Certainly, a position of determinism can’t be true. However, when we consider the weight of scientific evidence it becomes apparent immediately that we may have little choice in most matters.
The complexity of cause and effect is astounding. There are trillions of activities going on in our bodies over which we have little control. Our thoughts are just language memory patterns in our brains, flying on autopilot. Our emotions are simply slow moving chemicals and our moods can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the voltage of a brain pace maker. In Neuroscience we find a build up of electric activity, perhaps a readiness principal, before a decision to act is made. Even anecdotally we can in deep states of relaxation, near the edge of sleep, see our thoughts hammer away as an instrument of someone else.
Who or what does that type of seeing? Is that awareness simply an emergent phenomenon of complex neural activity? It may be since consciousness appears to log on when we wake up in the morning and the brain boots up. If we follow Francis Click, discover of DNA, we would argue the affirmative. He published “The Astonishing Hypothesis” in 1995 and since then the scientific community has rushed forward in a quest to achieve a neurological understanding of consciousness.
In it Crick states: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
Certainly, that is an audacious statement to make. It is one of sheer naked reductionism. However, we can carelessly become infatuated and fixated with our worship of scientific reductionism and its more philosophical counterpart, determinism. We can in fact turn such ideas into idols of veneration while turning a blind eye to other important and valid information. With this type of erudition we risk a failure to examine the foundation upon which our assertions are made.
The basic premise being overlooked here is what physicists call the measurement problem, i. e., the indeterministic essence of quantum mechanics – the very basis for all physical systems in our world and science. This problem is illuminated by Erwin Schrödinger’s equation that states that all possible states of an electron exist simultaneously and that when measured or observed it jumps to a particular state. This means that if two electrons collide or are split apart, they don’t simply bounce off each other or go in two opposite directions. The electrons exist in all possible directions at once and only “jump” to one particular state when observed.
So, who or what does the choosing or said better, decides where to exercise its will to look in a particular direction or way? Could it be true that everything is alive, embedded with willful consciousness and participating in reality, collectively creating a particular state vector collapse at each moment by an act of willful interaction?
Dr. Quantum on Quantum Entanglement
Einstein’s formula, E=Mc2, equates all matter to energy. Today, many are equating energy to information, witnessed as it were by conscious awareness, wisdom or design, i.e., information (that which forms activity) enables interactive decisions. Information encourages or instructs our decisions to think and act in relationship to the information received. When we look at the coordination of activity in the field of biology, it becomes almost as astounding as quantum mechanic’s “spooky action at a distance”.
How is it that thousands of shore birds raise suddenly into the air, unite gracefully and bank as if directed by a single mind? In similar fashion, we wonder how hundreds of starlings pivot instantly and synchronously together over a cornfield? Scientist have observed such motion with high-speed film and documented the movement that propagates like a wave from bird to bird at about one seventieth of a second. This is far quicker than the bird’s required reaction time to another bird’s movement. Some type of information is being transmitted through an unknown channel. Many have suggested a non-local channel.
Information theory is concerned with the capacity to contain or carry information. For example, when we take our glasses off, has our field capacity to hold information changed or was the resolution changed? It is simply that we are receiving less information. Because the resolution has changed, we see a blurry image. The size of the monitor and the ability to hold either resolution has not changed. Might there be such a thing as a conscious field and a conscious channel capacity?
Information theory is concerned with the measurement of information in terms of logarithmic probability – how many bits of information does it take to represent a certain type of information such as, let’s say, the letter “T” in print. Since we don’t know all the possible permutations or “combinations” of such a question we use statistical probability in order to be very accurate in our measurements. We add up all the logarithmic contributions of each possible symbol being measured in terms of its chance of occurrence. It is expressed as log2P. This gives us an informational field potential.
A brilliant physicist, Evan Harris Walker developed a sound scientific theory about how the brain might, at quantum levels, process information. In his book, The Physics of Consciousness, he adds log2P to Schrödinger’s equation. What he demonstrates mathematically is that when information is measured by consciousness and will in terms of a closed loop, it forces one real solution only when one probable state happens and all other possible states disappear.
This is what scientific observation confirms by experiments, as argued against in the famous EPR paradox. It is the measurement comparison of two sides of reality that causes state vector collapse or “spooky action at a distance” and the emergence of consciousness as part of the physical world. As such it would appear that a non-local channel of information is tied to a willful decision to interact and that is what collapses the wave function.
I sometimes wonder what scientists like Francis Crick are smoking. It boggles my mind how they can arrogantly rush off with a hypothesis and lead millions down the road of probable error and psychological destruction, without clearly examining their foundational precept.
A reflective and inquiring person knows that beyond the horizon or periphery of view lays a vast unknown and unexplored world. Scientists know well that the process of observation is limited to the instruments and conscious mind of the observer. With instruments of finer tuning comes more information that forms knowledge once it is transferred into a language the observer can understand and thereby view within the contextual field of acquired truth. Through this process is the meaning of new information gained. Consider time.
C. G. Jung – On Non-Locality of the Psyche”
A Matter of Time
Time doesn’t necessarily run in a discreet, successive, phase. Events or rather moments can be linked in both local and non-local ways. As an example, let’s say, a person, sitting with their spouse, was thinking about what a friend had said three weeks earlier. During his silent reflection, the spouse asked if he had heard from that friend. There was no connection between the two events – one was internal and the other explicate. Neither had they been discussing this person earlier. The two events resonated within the person – at least enough for him take note or think it odd of their simultaneous occurrence in external and internal form. We will call that synchronistic or acausal event number one.
Later in the evening, the same person is about to retire when the phone rings and it is that actual friend from three weeks back who is on the phone. Now there is a connection between this event and the one where the question was “have you heard from your friend”. That is acausal event number two.
The next morning, our person is checking e-mail when a neighbor stops in for an online chat and asks for advice. It turns out that a possible answer is the one he heard from his friend three weeks earlier. This becomes our non-local, acausal event number 3.
The individual then considers the question and, with little rationality for other possible answers, provides the one given to him by his friend. The reasoning is that the events were a-casual or unusual and held great meaning for the individual to whom they occurred. It seemed to this individual that the right answer for the person was the one supported by the acausal events.
In such a situation, the will to inform and interact three weeks earlier was in some way connected, in a super-positional, non-local and an entangled way, interacting with the three latter non-local events and information was communicated across a network to the consciousness of a third party, twice removed. For which receiver was the information intended? This third party might be interacting with other non-local and entangled events or information on the subject at hand, either from the present, the past, or maybe even the future that informs their will to interact with reality, collapsing the wave function at a certain explicit moment.
The system described here, while acausal is not anti-causal. It suggests a superposition of states that exist in a nonlocal fashion and manifest a particular outcome through a state of collective willful interaction. If Crick’s hypothesis is correct then such collective willful interaction would not exist and there would not be a state vector collapse of acausal and non-local events. There is no room for a collective consciousness in Crick’s view. Also, quantum mechanics and reality itself would not work and cease to exist, as we know it. At best it would create a chicken and egg scenario, which came first, the quantum that caused the willful interaction and thereby created its own existence?
Ask Rosalind Franklin before you do.
Regarding information from the future. The science that allows for time travel from a relativistic point is well known. Regarding tachyons and faster-than-light (FTL) effects for transmitting information backwards in time – experiments are still further down the road. Though not confirmed, there has been no evidence to disprove the existence of tachyons though physicists have tried in earnest.
Related to the area of quantum teleportation and entanglement, work is also being done in the area of quantum game theory. Here we find results in anomalously high success rates in coordination games between separated players. These high success rates would seem to require communication between the players; however, the game is set up such that during the game, this is physically impossible. These currently do not allow for anti-causality or a reversal of communication in time but do suggest super-positional, non-local states.
There are theoretical instances of string theory that allow for the communication of information backward in time. If the communication of information that is backwards in time could be proven then this too would impact Crick’s astonishing hypothesis.
We are not arguing for backward-in-time communication. One thing is established, that this is an acausal system of simultaneous, non-local events supported by fundamental theories in quantum mechanics and certain other theories and interpretations of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal. These include Schrödinger’s equation and the de Broglie–Bohm theory that are explicitly non-local.
What IS being said is that time doesn’t necessarily run in a discreet, successive, phase. Events or rather moments can be linked in both local and non-local ways. In addition it is suggested that according to the theory of relativity, a sharp distinction cannot be maintained between space and time. The only temporal manifestations of differences are at velocities that are small compared to the tremendous velocity of light. An analogy for this would be the lifecycle of a forest over many generations. If we viewed a forest over enormous intervals of trees dying, falling, seedlings growing into old trees that die and so forth, the forest would appear more dynamic; like a single living or moving entity rather than a still forest.
The implication of quantum theory is that elements separated in space are related projections of a higher dimensional order, related non-locally. It follows that moments, likewise separated in time are projections of these non-local, acausal, higher orders of dimensions. This leads to a multidimensional ground where projections from such orders determine whatever time orders there may be. Here the ultimate element of nature is not a point event but a moment. Therefore moments that “skip” intervening spaces are just as valid as other forms of time that appear to be continuous. Perhaps a moment and the will to interact represent fundamental elements of nature.
If Francis Click and company want to truly understand where our will resides, they might want to look into areas such as projections from non-local, acasual, higher orders than simply an individual brain. Of course this might require finer instruments and harder science than is immediately at their disposal. It would reduce the playing field and also shrink the availability of certain research dollars. However, from this writer’s point of view it is the only ethical and perhaps morally right thing to do. Of course, they could at least revise their hypothesis and remove our identity from it, that being our will to choose. What we do or WILL is who we are. Our will is in fact our very being. “And . . . said (willed) let there be light (consciousness).” Genesis 1:3