IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Q & A and I | Main | I brake for skeptics »

Comments

According to this model, an object always has a potential existence, but it has no actual existence until the calculations are made that allow the object to be "drawn" on the "screen" of our reality

The obvious objection (mentioned also by Michael) to that model is that the persons who do the calculations (i.e. scientists) are, themselves, composed of physical particles.

And if physical particles/objects only exist potentially until calculations are made, it doesn't explain why the physical bodies of scientists are actual, not potential.

And this is not a composition fallacy: If each particle, before calculations, exists only as a potential, an "aggregate" of them will be potential too (whatever "aggregate" could means in this context). Adding potentiality + potentiality won't bring actuality.

What brings actuality is calculation, not spontaneous additions of potential particles.

The only possible and logically coherent reply to it (as far I can see, maybe I'm wrong) is to postulate a supreme non-human calculator (God) who bring actuality from potentiality in the basic fabric of reality.

God created an universe of pure information and potentiality, precisely to enable his creatures (all of us)to create, selectively, an actual universe according to our level of consciousness.

If that conjeture is right, I don't know... but it seems to be coherent with the quantum model.

The model is only coherent if by "calculations" is not implied "human calculations" exclusively, but "calculation" in general (whatever is the person or entity making the calculation).

In that interpretation, the objection mentioned above would miss the point.

How could there be a universe before the appearance of the first living organism? It's no good to say that God's consciousness was observing everything and making it manifest, because if that were true, then presumably God (being omniscient and eternal) would still be observing everything all the time -- in which case, particles would always behave like particles and never like waves, since there would never be a time when they were unobserved. In fact, however, particles do behave like waves a great deal of time, specifically when they are unobserved; so if there is an omniscient consciousness overseeing the universe, its observations clearly cannot affect the behavior of subatomic particles.

This objection is correct.

I propose a possible alternative. According Michael's argument:

-To postulate God's consciousness as the explanation is incorrect, because in that case "particles would always behave like particles and never like waves, since there would never be a time when they were unobserved"

That argument is correct if what bring actuality from potentiality is any kind of observation. If that's the case, Michael's conclusion is inescapable. God couldn't be the answer.

But if what brings actuality from potentiality is a specific kind of observation (for example, measurements or mathematical calculations, all of which are intentional)then God's consciousness could do the work in specific instances (i.e., when God wants to do it)

If conscious intention causes the actuality, it means that non-intentional observation won't do it. God could, if He exists, apply intention selectively to bring actuality from potentiality in specific cases (like creating the universe), not in each case or everytime.

The question is: is calculating the same than observing? If I'm calculating X phenomenon, it's true that in most cases I'm observing it.

But the reverse is false: I can observe a phenomenon without any calculation or measurement of it at all. These are only species of observation.

This support my argument that "observation" is not an unitary phenomenon, and it could have different qualities, funcitons or consequences. And not all of them have to produce the effect of bringing actuality from potentiality.

Just another speculation... :)

The paragraph "God created an universe of pure information and potentiality, precisely to enable his creatures (all of us)to create, selectively, an actual universe according to our level of consciousness" should be preceded by "Another possibility is that..."

After you study quantum physics for a year or several years or a lifetime, then stand back close your eyes and run straight into a brick wall and if you have not observed the wall it should not be there and you will be fine. Sorry my idea of humor. If you want paradoxes and a fried mind take up the study of quantum physics.

The good thing about quantum physics is that someday religion and science may come together but not in the near future. Too many paradigms and too many in science and religion that think they have found truth.

I have been blogging on two websites: advaita and an atheist website. They are polar opposites but yet they both have one thing in common. They already know what reality is. One is based in following religious gurus and the other is based in materialism and scientism.

At least they have one thing in common they both think we are nothingness.

Maybe I posted this before but I discovered that the atheists don’t understand or don’t want to admit to the difference between antidotal evidence and qualitative evidence at least the ones I blogged with. As far as quantum physics is concerned I believe the cat is not alive whether we look inside the box or not.

Interesting thoughts as always, ZC.

But in one respect I may not have made my point clear. When I talk about making calculations, I don't mean that the observer is consciously calculating the location of the particle. (In fact it is impossible for scientists to calculate, in advance, exactly where any given particle might be. They can only calculate a range of possibilities - a probability distribution.)

What I mean is that the observer's consciousness is serving as an information processor, and what an information processor does is perform calculations (automatically and, to all intents and purposes, instantaneously).

According to the idea I'm exploring, the mere act of directing attention at something causes the necessary calculations to be made in order to bring that thing into existence.

Brian Whitworth thinks these calculations are made by an information processor distinct from the observer, while I'm more partial to the notion that the observer's own consciousness serves as an information processor.

Either way, it's not a matter of the observer crunching numbers in a deliberate fashion. The calculations are performed automatically, without the conscious knowledge of the observer.

This hypothesis contradicts your statement: "I can observe a phenomenon without any calculation or measurement of it at all." According to the VR theory, as I understand it, observation of any object logically entails that the necessary calculations are being made to bring that object into actuality. Observation and making calculations are not two separate things, but one and the same thing, or at the very least, intimately related.

For a discussion of how these calculations might be carried out, see the excerpt from Ben Iscatus' review of "My Big TOE" in my post "Modeling the World":

https://tinyurl.com/lpth2h

"According to the idea I'm exploring, the mere act of directing attention at something causes the necessary calculations to be made in order to bring that thing into existence."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Michael. If you are directing your attention "at" something, presumably "external," whatever that would mean in this case, then in what sense are your calculations bringing that which you are already focused on into being?

In quantum physics its all about attraction to the next similar partical/wave. there is continuity in *resonance* rather it changes from particle to wave upon observation.in other words atom smashing in a room fitted with huge machines that look like a nuclearsperical thick-wall cylinder and gears that turn or hold the force for smashing atoms through the slit test doesn,t require calculations because of the velocity can,t be measured with any certainty,just as the mind escapes definition in a electrical sense as it resembles more of a phenonomen that rises out of undulation in a medium of opposite poles in equal balance to each other;positive/negative-that attract to its counterpart adjacent across the whole spectrum of the universe..as we know it. God is Triune or as close as a ,Thought.

Thanks Michael, I see the point more clearly now.

Yes, if we identify observation with calculation, then any observation would make the trick of bringing actuality from potentiality. In that case, the "God solution" is vulnerable to the objection mentioned above.

But I'm still see a problem. It's possible to focus your attention in a phenomenon or object that you're not observing at all (or that you can't detect at all).

For example, and only for the sake of the example, I can focus my attention in my mom, though she's in another country. (In fact, this is what praying and spiritual healing at distance is all about)

In this case, I'm not observing (in sense of sensory perception) the object or person in question, nor using any indirect means of observation or detection (like laboratory machinary).

In the case of quantum particles, scientists are not directly observing them either, but they observe their effects through their laboratory instrumental. It's a kind of indirect (sensory) observation.

In fact, the paradoxical effects they're getting are entirely based on the kind of experimental manipulation that they're performing.

But in my example, I'm not neither directly nor indirectly observing my mom (at most, I'm "seeing" her in my mind, but my senses weren't affected by her at all). And I'm not manipulating any intrument either. However, I'm focusing my attention in her.

I'm making this point only for the sake of supporting a possible distinction bertween observation and focus of attention.

The question is: is that kind of "non-observational" focus of attention sufficient to bring the actuality from potentiality?

I'd say YES. And Michael's comment "mere act of directing attention at something causes the necessary calculations to be made in order to bring that thing into existence" would seem to support that interpretation.

But still I see a possible objection: could I to bring actuality from potentiality in my own and directly, without making any laboratory experiment at all?

Technically, and as far I know, we have no evidence of it. All of the evidence gotten by physicists is entirely based on laboratory experiments and experimental manipulations and instrumental arrangements.

But if the hypothesis we're talking about is correct, then scientists (and any other person) could bring the same quantum effects through focus of attention on quantum clouds or potentialities, without making any experiment at all.

Attention would make the trick by its own.

In fact, this is the only possible explanation to the existence of actualities before the appearance of the first living sentient organism and experimental scientists.

I'm not denying that that explanation is correct. In fact I'm openly symphatetic to this interpretation.

My idea is that the only evidence gotten by physicists about the power of observation/calculation to bring actuality is based upon laboratory experiments, not in any non-experimental cases of focus of attention or intention acting directly on quantum potentialities to bring actualities.

A materialist physicist, in order to avoid any spiritualitic implications of quantum mechanics, could stick to this point, and resist the inference of a observer-dependent reality (it would be hard to defend, but at least it's possible to make a case for it).

Unless we also identify observation/calculation with focus of attention, it seems we have another interesting problem here.

"If you are directing your attention 'at' something, presumably 'external,' whatever that would mean in this case, then in what sense are your calculations bringing that which you are already focused on into being?"

I mean that if you turn your head to the left, the objects to the left of you will be actualized. If you turn your back on those objects and no one else is observing them, then they become potentia again.

It's the same thing as shifting the camera angle in a videogame. As you pivot toward the left, new things appear on the screen - things that were not previously being drawn, because they were offscreen.

The idea is not original with me. See this post:

https://tinyurl.com/l3d7r8

“I mean that if you turn your head to the left, the objects to the left of you will be actualized. If you turn your back on those objects and no one else is observing them, then they become potentia again.”

That I understand. The way you stated it sounds to me like you are trying to say that the objects both do exist and do not exist at the same time. But what you are really saying is that they do not exist unless we are observing them. Or to use the flashlight in the dark analogy, the things the light reveals within its moving cone of illumination exist within the light and do not exist outside it.

Even this idea of a “cloud of potentia” is an attempt to see what we cannot see, to imagine what we cannot imagine. It is still an attempt to impose the bounds of experience, through inference, on what has no bounds, so it is still untrue, and not at all an accurate description of what is there beyond our thought.

We could say that “the world” is made of all the things we sense. And since our senses are highly exclusive, particularities becomes defined by that exclusivity. Apart from the exclusionary nature of the senses no information from what is a boundless universe is excluded, and thus, there are no things, because “things” are defined by data excluded from the senses which the senses are incapable of detecting and the brain assimilating.

The struggle, in whatever view we have, is I think not to lose the idea that there is something there anyway but which is not describable, because anything that is describable will take the form of what our exclusionary senses—and the ideas we develop from them—convey, and that is not what what-is-there is in itself. The most that we can do is have the idea that there is being-ness. Any attempt by physicists to flesh out what that is in more detail, I think, is another one of those ongoing attempts to encapsulate the universe, to shrink the universe until we become bigger than the universe and are able to contain it within ourselves as an explanation in our minds, which words like “cloud of potentia” fool us into thinking we are doing.

The way you stated it sounds to me like you are trying to say that the objects both do exist and do not exist at the same time. But what you are really saying is that they do not exist unless we are observing them

DmDuncan, I think Michael's distinction has to do with existing in potentia and existing in actuality. This is a subtle distinction.

Existing in potentia is not the same than "no existing" at all. Thus Michael is not claiming "objects both do exist and do not exist at the same time". It would be logically contradictory and absurd.

Existing in potentia has a basic property: the possibility of being actualized when the right conditions are present (for example, under the influence of an observation/calculation).

This is similar to your argument (in the other post) on losing our individual/personal identity but existing as a template in God. In that case (while existing as a God's template), our personal identity doesn't exist actually, but it exists in potentia.

Objects exist in potentia, in the sense that the information to actualize them is present. But the actualization is dependent on the observer's consciousness or information processor.

Even this idea of a “cloud of potentia” is an attempt to see what we cannot see, to imagine what we cannot imagine. It is still an attempt to impose the bounds of experience, through inference, on what has no bounds, so it is still untrue, and not at all an accurate description of what is there beyond our thought.

You might be correct. I guess the "cloud of potentia" or probabilities is a useful concept to make sense of the evidence. But possibly it's very incomplete from a metaphysical point of view.

Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics (process ontology) is very compatible with that description. Even physicist Henry Stapp has invoked Whitehead's metaphysical ideas to account for it.

"I guess the 'cloud of potentia' or probabilities is a useful concept to make sense of the evidence."

That is what I mean by trying to shrink the universe and contain it in oneself via explanation. That's what I think happens in all interpretations of QM. Because ultimately I think those who want explanations will accept a really weird one that allows them to say they know how it all works, rather than to admit that what is "really" there is completely beyond their ability to put into any words at all, including words like "cloud of potentia."

The less weird option among the Copenhagen and Many Worlds Interpretation is the one I'm pointing out. But it doesn't permit you to say you know what's going on at all. It only lets you speak of what you observe, and not at all about what is beyond observation, and that beyond observation part is where QM gets weird when people try to figure out what's gong on there. This "cloud of potentia" for example is not something anyone has seen or detected. No. That's an inference which is always an extension of one's experience. And I think it's a faulty inference. In other words, Schrodinger's Cat is not both alive and dead at the same time——it's NEITHER alive NOR dead at the same time. The very concepts of alive and dead themselves must be abandoned on the subject of what is there beyond observation.

Such terminology I think is naive. Through such words and ideas we try to see the universe when we are not here to see it, which we can never do.

“What is beyond observation”?

Awareness.

What is beyond awareness?

That is like asking what is beyond infinite.

"I can focus my attention in my mom, though she's in another country. (In fact, this is what praying and spiritual healing at distance is all about)"

It's also what remote viewing is all about. Possibly the remote viewer, by directing attention to a distant location, brings that location into being (in the sense that, while unobserved, it is only a potential). Perhaps this helps explain how remote viewers can access a target merely when given the latitude and longitude; if the target exists as information in a database, then the latitude and longitude may act like the Dewey Decimal System number in a library, allowing for retrieval of the numbered item. Perhaps this also explains why remote viewers sometimes access the location at a different point in time; perhaps all information about the location, past and present (and future?), is stored in the database.

"Even this idea of a “cloud of potentia” is an attempt to see what we cannot see, to imagine what we cannot imagine. It is still an attempt to impose the bounds of experience, through inference, on what has no bounds ..."

True. Here's what Lanza and Berman have to say in "Biocentrism," p. 55. After saying that particles can be waves, they write:

"The key question is 'waves of what?' Back in 1926, German physicist Max Born demonstrated that quantum waves are waves of probability, not waves of material ... They are statistical predictions. Thus, a wave of probability is nothing more than a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, the wave is not there! As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, 'No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.'"

They go on to make this point:

"Note that we are talking about discrete objects like photons or electrons, rather than collections of myriad objects, such as, say, a train.... [A]s the considered object gets bigger, its wavelength gets smaller. Once we get into the macroscopic realm, the waves are too close together to be noticed or measured. They are still there, however."

Thus the location of a building is not really indeterminate even when it is unobserved, since (on a macro scale) the superposition of subatomic particle-waves makes no noticeable difference. The building itself, however, can still be said to exist as "a cloud of potentia" when unobserved, since, as Wheeler said, no phenomenon is real until it is observed. The "cloud," of course, is not a real cloud - it is a set of statistical possibilities.

It may be that we are trying to understand something that is just not understandable, as DMDuncan suggests. It's still fun to try, though! :-)

“It may be that we are trying to understand something that is just not understandable”


How can a Being with limited awareness or unawareness understand “something” with Infinite Awareness?

A synonym for unawareness is ignorance.

As the Buddha so rightly realized the origin of our suffering is ignorance.

Our unawareness is the origin of our suffering.

But then without our unawareness there is no us. Catch 22 thing?

As Sinatra sang often and the Texas Tenors sang recently “ I want to be me”.

"The logic of wave/particle duality, then, seems to lead to the conclusion that the universe, prior to the appearance of sentient life forms, existed in an indeterminate form, as a vast cloud of possibilities, a dizzying array of probability distributions, none of which had been actualized"

I think that we must keep in mind,the possibility that in the VR hypothesis, QM was non existant prior to the entry of the conscious unit. QM and the probability cloud would have no meaning in a VR universe until an observor is present to watch the VR. Past history is also non existant until you look at it. Our history of the universe with all of its 14 billion year time frame could very well be a VR rendering. In this theory QM would only be meaningful as a choice device for the players. By players I mean any conciousness capable of actualizing an observational decision. When "physical" consciousness entered the VR, physical conscious decisions began to drive the outcomes. Prior to this the "universe" can be visualized as "offline program developement" no Quantum measurements needed. Remember there is no "out there" out there, just data. No, tangled heirarchy, no backward causation, no real physical consciousness just observation of the program and the probabilities we need to affect outcomes. The probabilities are not needed without us.


"The probabilities are not needed without us."

...or our little green friends.

If an objective universe doesn't really exist, then it's a fair assumption that an objective pre-history doesn't exist, either. Big point, GregL.

"...or our little green friends."

Little green friends indeed. We are not the first players in this "game."

I think GregL and Ben are right in saying that, according to this scenario, an unobserved universe is a universe that doesn't exist - or at least, exists only as a potential, rather than as an actuality.

It's rather mind-boggling to consider some physical object - say, a table - and then realize that at the subatomic level it consists of particles like electrons ... and these particles, most of the time, are waves ... and not physical waves, but probability waves ... which means the particles are just data in a probability distribution ... which means the table as a whole is just a collection of data.

And since any given electron, when unobserved, occupies a range of positions, it can equally well be said to occupy no definite position ... which means that the table, when unobserved, occupies no definite position (though the range of positions it can occupy is limited; and, at the macro level, these superposed positions would appear to be identical, because the differences are so minute).

The question is whether the probability wave exists independent of consciousness or as a mental construct. It is not a physical wave, but is it a mental representation of real data (as VR theory would have it) or is it a mental creation with nothing "real" to back it up (as philosophical idealism would have it)?

When the particle is observed, does it occupy a position only in the observer's field of awareness? Or does it occupy a position in some real space outside the observer?

Curiouser and curiouser ...

The world has had an "infinite duration" to "think up" all this stuff. There really is nothing new under the sun so to speak (except maybe for us). Einstein didn't create E=mc2, but he merely "spit out" what already existed. All we are it seems is energy (or information) processors. Therefore, I don't think we create anything. We are aware of the things we do but in the end I believe it is not us doing it. Really, who are you and I but a part of a whole that is intimately connected to the whole. How does a part (a neuron or whatever) act out ANYTHING independently when every part is made out of the same thing(s) and is intimately connected to a whole? How does individuality (free will) arise from such intimate connections?

The question would then becomes why is there anything at all (the age old question)? If not for you or I, then for who or for what?

Maybe I drifted off topic a bit (not such a technical person) and I am not looking to argue for or against what I said here. I am just expressing a strong belief of mine. I have yet to be persuaded otherwise.

“The question would then becomes why is there anything at all (the age old question)? If not for you or I, then for who or for what?”

The necessity of the Absolute is to create. How else could Oneness express it vitality and intelligence without creation. Now besides creation there has to be manifestation of all creation from within as all that is; is within this Infinite Oneness.

Without creation there is only stillness or pure awareness. That would be static not dynamic. We are living proof of the dynamic aspect of the Absolute. Some more dynamic than others.

Not sure there is a who; but there may be a what.

"Not sure there is a who; but there may be a what."

I will agree with you William on that since we can't really know. Best to be unsure than sure in the absence of concrete evidence or at least unsure of EXACTLY what is going on even when you do have some sort of evidence for something.

Now, is what you are saying is that this "Absolute" uses us (all life and whatever else) to express some sort of creativity? Kinda like machines? This brings me back to the notion that life is more like processors rather than creators.

I know many might say that each of us is a potential of something bigger and we pull from this something bigger making us free to pull whatever (depending on our individual ability to do so) EVEN IF "whatever" ALREADY EXISTS. We are free to choose from the whatever.

Somehow, no matter what I read or experience, I always believe that the choices we make are already made before we make them...rendering free will an illusion or more of a feeling of choice. Kinda like if you are in a parked train and the train next to you starts moving...you might think that you are moving.

It would seem to me then that the future already exists and is known, the question again becomes is any one of our individuality enough to change the whole as entangled and connected as everything seems to be.

Am I being clear enough, I don't know?

“Am I being clear enough, I don't know?”

How can we be clear enough we are like ants on an anthill trying to figure out something that at this time is far beyond our ability to understand. But it will not always be beyond our understanding. We are on a journey, a far-reaching journey. Now that journey depends on our seeking of answers to our questions. We may find many detours and distractions along the way but the spiritualists have something they call the law of progress; not sure it is a law but it appears our consciousness is advancing to greater understanding.

The evolution of the soul in a relative phenomenal world.

Now I set out many years ago to find an answer to a question that people felt was not even a good question or an invalid question. It turned out to have an answer that surprised me beyond anything I could have predicted or even imagined.

As far as “I don’t know” nothing could be more profound that stating that, as long as we don’t give up seeking the underlying reality of phenomena. So many feel they do know when it appears to me they don’t know. Recently I have been in contact with some advaita “types” and they feel they are the only one’s that do know. Funny how our beliefs become thee beliefs, religious or atheist. Ego stuff?

“Now, is what you are saying is that this "Absolute" uses us (all life and whatever else) to express some sort of creativity? Kind of like machines? This brings me back to the notion that life is more like processors rather than creators.”

We do not exist for the sport or pleasure of the Absolute but the only way Oneness can express its infinite potential is through Beings will less than perfect awareness of reality. The absolute source of all that is must experience itself within itself, as it is infinite Oneness. We are an example of that expression. Now how can every soul be unique? The evolution of consciouenss process appears to be the process that makes every soul unique. From a spark of awareness to gods. The human species is just a short road stop on that journey.

I have never been fond of analogies that use machines to explain the expression of the Absolute, as processors cannot express joy, compassion, creativity, Kate and Jon plus 8 drama, etc. The very stuff of life to better understand reality.

"When the particle is observed, does it occupy a position only in the observer's field of awareness? Or does it occupy a position in some real space outside the observer?"

Michael
I think that there may be two positions on this(no surprise).Getting away from VR theory here...this exact question was addressed in the book "Quantum Enigma." According to the authors,once the particle is observed it is in the same position for everyone. It's probability wave is completely collapsed.

My guess is that VR theory would approach this diffrently and say as long as the position is "remembered" or "recorded", it is the same for everyone. Otherwise, it becomes a probability wave again.

Thanks William for your reply. That is what is great about blogs and all...to bounce around ideas whether we agree on everything or not. Current physics (and past), however confusing to me, is fascinating. Some brilliant minds and experiments. Also, not to forget about (other) unusual phenomena, some mentioned on this blog. Wonderful!

“Current physics (and past), however confusing to me, is fascinating.”

That which is seen is not reality but that which is unseen and unknowable is reality. Unknowable does not mean we cannot express its qualities in fact we do every day of our lives.

Theoretical quantum physics is in the process of finding the underlying reality of that which is seen. Many theoretical quantum physicists begin to sound more like sages than materialists and then their former peers the materialists immediately reject them.

They have to be rejected by those that hold an inflexible materialist paradigm as the materialist lives on a very steep and slippery slope.

The religious don’t live on as slippery or steep of slope they just punt when someone comes along and states the earth is more that 6000 year old and was not created in six days. The religious folks just say well God’s day is not 24 hours. The materialist does not have such an out; one paranormal phenomenon not explained is disastrous to their cherished beliefs. Total wipe out and mentality painful.

The materialist must defend their paradigm at all costs, any cost, even if their response makes no sense. Most buy it, as most of us are materialists to different degrees whether we know it or not. The materialist will even resort to personal character assassinations as a last resort; we see this most often with religious, atheist, and political beliefs.

A recent movie just came out about a love affair with a certain economic theory and the producer of that movie will now endure profound personal attacks on his character by many that will not even view the movie. That is the power of paradigms.

Hey William, I am kinda a materialist in the sense that I believe in "cause and effect" even if they are reversed or whatever strange happenings go on. I believe in, for maybe lack of a better word, the "mechanisms" by which things work. How things are connected no matter how strange the connection may be. How one thing (or whatver) affects another.

“How one thing (or whatver) affects another.”

Well what most of the sages would say and all of the mystics that I have read; that all is Oneness so one thing always affects the other. For me the journey of the soul is in the details. Now many state that the devil is in the details but from my point of view Oneness expressing its dynamic potential is the details and if the details lack love and divine intelligence then those details have degrees or levels of unawareness in them.

Of course without that unawareness there is no us to talk about or experience those details. How else could infinite awareness express it potential without our unawareness? Kind of a catch 22 thing. The creation of souls have their home in unawareness; some more than others it appears. It appears an old soul new soul thing.

All that is less than Infinite Awareness has to be expressed as relative phenomena details. It is no accident that we live and have our Being in a relative phenomenal world. Those that believe that awareness and consciousness exist by chance know little about science and its reliance on calculating probabilities.

We assume that atheists being very smart people would understand the scientific method the very best. Well my discovery recently has been they confuse antidotal evidence with qualitative evidence. They have to; too mentality painful not to. The materialistic paradigm is very powerful as I have a good dose of it myself.

I started my research very much a materialist but not completely as I had observed some unusual phenomena when young that I could not explain in materialist terms.

"the producer of that movie will now endure profound personal attacks on his character by many that will not even view the movie. That is the power of paradigms."

The producer of that movie has also made a lot of personal attacks on people who don't share his outlook. That, too, is the power of paradigms.

I wanted to read the math for the time-reversed correlated particle, because that's really strange (yes, stranger than the other parts of the qm), but I couldn't find it.
What did they cite in Biocentrism?

“The producer of that movie has also made a lot of personal attacks on people who don't share his outlook. That, too, is the power of paradigms.”

As someone that I studied his teachings for a couple of years stated nothing comes into experience uninvited. Not sure this is 100 per cent true but it appears to happen often. The power of paradigms affects us all. No one is immune from paradigms it is all a matter of variation or degree.

“profound personal attacks on his character by many that will not even view the movie.”

My point was that those that don’t take the time to view the movie then make personal character attacks. This often occurs with materialists that call all of the qualitative evidence for paranormal phenomena antidotal without researching the data or it appears not knowing or wanting to acknowledge the difference. If they cannot make their case they resort to personal attacks on those that do not share their view.


Documentaries are notorious for telling one side of a story or belief especially when political or religious views are involved.

My consulting experience taught me that too often we blame people for systemic problems or failures. We humans appear to have a tendency to blame people and refuse to look at the system that allowed such failures to occur. Systems are profoundly difficult to change it is much easier to blame others.

The good news appears to be that we learn from these failures over time and a series of experiences. The lessons often seem to take forever to realize and are often harsh but effective from a spiritual point of view and not always from a materialistic/wealth point of view.

"What did they cite in Biocentrism?"

Unfortunately there are no citations. The book is aimed at the general public and has no footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography.

But having read about this experiment elsewhere, I think the basic description is correct.

“The power of paradigms affects us all. No one is immune from paradigms it is all a matter of variation or degree.”

As I was mowing the lawn I thought about what I stated above and I think it does not tell the whole story. A paradigm may cause us to insult others with personal attacks when our paradigm or cherished belief feels threatened but those personal attacks will have what some refer to as karma or what we sow we reap.

This karma appears to be some kind of feedback system that helps us to change the way we view others and ourselves. It is kind of like a boomerang effect.

Now sometimes it appears that there is no karma for some people as they often insult or harm others their entire life with no consequences but we do not know what happens to them after this life or in another life on earth.

Hey William, I am certainly unsure how the world works. I can state only two things that I believe strongly but without sufficient or even any evidence at all, so there really is nothing to argue or debate. They are:

1) There is no such thing as randomness. I believe randomness is our inability to calculate or see the order of something. I believe the universe (or maybe even universes or whatever this all is) to be extremely exact no matter how random it all appears. This pretty much flies in the face of quantum mechanics I guess if I understand right.

2) Regarding free will. This was already discussed at great length on this blog and tried to at least read some at the time. I still can't shake the belief that if indeed the universe (or whatever) is extremely precise (and not random) and that if everything (and everyone) is one, then how does any one individual move freely of one's own will? I can't picture the "mechanisms" that would allow this to work.

“I believe the universe (or maybe even universes or whatever this all is) to be extremely exact no matter how random it all appears.”

Perfectly imperfect or is it imperfect perfectly? You are in a good place in life most want to convince others they know the truth or truths. I think the statement I don’t know will reveal much more than I know. I think almost always the statement I know is an intellectual statement.

I for one think we as a soul have a very long journey ahead of us and enlightenment is not the end of the journey. Maybe it gets one into a higher dimension in these other worlds but it appears to me that enlightenment is not an all knowing status.

“I still can't shake the belief that if indeed the universe (or whatever) is extremely precise (and not random) and that if everything (and everyone) is one, then how does any one individual move freely of one's own will?”

One word answer for that one: ignorance. A synonym for ignorance is unawareness. Now I prefer the concept of choices within boundaries to free will and those boundaries are degrees or levels of our unawareness.

“I can't picture the "mechanisms" that would allow this to work.”

When you figure that one out let me know ok. I don’t think it is easy to get into the mind of the infinite absolute. But then there would be no journey of the soul or an expression of oneness if it were easy.

We have been created and manifested unaware for a reason.

Hey William, yeah I do think awareness seems to play some sort of "major" role in the universe. I guess, oddly so, without any awareness NOTHING would exist. Also, there are so many different levels of awareness. Does awareness rely on the physical? Some evidence seems to point that this may not be true. Of ocurse, to me, even the non-physical is physical if perhaps just some other level of physicality...just the materialist in me;-)

The "mechanisms" by which free will would actually work is certainly a great, great mystery as is the world itself. I think time seems to be one of the major limiting factors to free will. If indeed all things exist (past, present and future) and can be known at any given moment, then it seems "the arrow of time" prevents all this stuff from becoming some "mishmash of existence"....unless one were able to calculate or make sense of all that "mishmash" of course....or their awareness was in a much, much better light than ours.

This makes me think of the story of the Flatlanders and their awareneness of reality verses the 3D'ers.


“I do think awareness seems to play some sort of "major" role in the universe”

Before the big bang there was Infinite Awareness, after the big bang there existed a universe of limited awareness (involution) but with infinite potential. We are an aspect of that infinite potential. From my point of view awareness precedes consciousness. Those that refer to God as cosmic consciousness may be making God in their human or their soul’s image. We want God to be like us; it helps us to visualize this Isness. Kind of a super human God with a super cosmic consciousness.


“I guess, oddly so, without any awareness NOTHING would exist”

I agree.

“Of course, to me, even the non-physical is physical if perhaps just some other level of physicality...just the materialist in me;-)”

Yes it does appear that way but appearances can be so deceiving as the mystics continually tell us, but since we do not see or feel what they do, we pay little attention to their words which is a normal aspect of the evolution of the soul.

Now what I have discovered in my research that often these “truths’ are 180 degrees from what they appear to be. I suspect that the physical will someday be discovered not to be physical at all. The physical may be some type of frozen consciousness or whatever. What appears physical to us is only due to our level or degree of awareness or stated another way our degree or level of unawareness.

“If indeed all things exist (past, present and future) and can be known at any given moment, then it seems "the arrow of time" prevents all this stuff from becoming some "mishmash of existence"....”

The arrow of time is a nice analogy for the series of events that gives the soul the opportunity to progress in awareness.

Awareness is timelessness; consciousness reveals itself in the framework of time. The dynamic aspect of God or gods requires a time-based reality, which resides in consciousness whereas awareness is a timeless reality. Consciousness is a flow of thoughts; awareness is no-thoughts and cannot be defined at this time. This is why many call this pure awareness emptiness. It is anything but empty it is all and all. Many even so called self proclaimed enlightened gurus confuse this emptiness with nothingness but only out of their unawareness.

As a side note think most of us confuse observation or witnessing a phenomenon with awareness.

Infinite Oneness can only express its infinite potential from within its own infinite Oneness and to do that there must be some degree of unawareness in all of its expressions. Kind of a catch 22 thing. The origin of our suffering is this unawareness and the origin of this unawareness is in this expression (involution) process. Stated another way we are innocent of our ignorance. The religious folks hate the idea of that innocence. Instead of original sin there is original innocence. That 180 degree thing again.

Hey William, to even guess what is going on "behind the curtain" is extremely hard when one is not even in the theatre house or don't even know what a theater house or curtains are.

I know we all try to remain positive about things in general, but I think the world (or if whatever grand intelligence) to be indifferent to us and life in general.

I have never seen whole scale change to prove this wrong.

Anyway, this is off topic and really I'll just give you the last word William (or if someone else wishes of course to chime in) if you choose to comment on what I say here. I won't respond back and just read, unless I have a question on what you wrote. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and insights William and all!

“the very fact of observing and/or measuring the photon that causes it to behave like a particle.”

“Anyway, this is off topic”

Our discussions on awareness, unawareness, and consciousness and the very fact of observing a photon causes it to behave like a particle may not be so far off topic. It may be very connected to the mystery of consciousness and the physical world.

“Hey William, to even guess what is going on "behind the curtain" is extremely hard when one is not even in the theatre house or don't even know what a theater house or curtains are.”

I think we are all in the theater and the curtain is like a veil and very thick and extremely difficult to see through. But look at it this way if the veil was not really thick there would be no us. We exist as individual identities because of thickness of the veil or curtain.

“I know we all try to remain positive about things in general, but I think the world (or if whatever grand intelligence) to be indifferent to us and life in general.”

I agree it sure seems that way when we look at the problems in the world and often in our lives.

Study the mystics they have a different story to tell about life in general. They see a reality if even for a moment or moments that completely changes their view of the world and that grand intelligence. Because we don’t see or feel what they see and feel we pay little attention to their words.

Kind of like we who have experienced and believe in the paranormal and then when we communicate with the atheists they often ridicule our words and accuse us of not being rational beings like them. We often end up making some of the same mistakes with the mystics as the atheist makes with our words and experiences.

Life is like that. I.e. each soul’s path or journey is unique as every snowflake is unique; how is that for the expression of this grand intelligence? Maybe when a perfect system is created no tampering is required. There are times that I feel that this grand intelligence can take that perfect system and: well you know what. But I believe it is my awareness that is lacking not this perfect grand intelligence that many refer to as God.

Thanks Rich for the dialog and questions.

Perhaps this question was answered somewhere in the previous comments, but I couldn’t find it so I’ll ask it anyway.

What constitutes ‘consciousness’ and/or ‘the first sentient lifeform’?

Michael says in his post, “It's no good to say that God's consciousness was observing everything”, well, what exactly is God’s consciousness? Is it like Man’s consciousness, just, bigger? And who is to say rocks don’t have some form of consciousness? Alan Watts seems to think they do. What about a virus? Does that count? How about if we put a camera in the slit experiment, record the results, but then don’t watch it until later. Do the particles know we will watch the recording and behave accordingly? Or does the information on the recording change accordingly?

Creating theories based on the little we know about quantum physics right now is always a risk, I think it is always better to call them ‘interesting thought experiments’.

I highly recommend the book ‘The Quantum Enigma’ by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. These guys are highly respected scientists who lack the ego of many of their peers. They give a detailed yet readable overview of what we know, don’t know and may find out about quantum theory.
From the book, “Arguably, the reason we observe only states characterized by unique positions is that we humans are beings who can experience only position (and time).” So of course experiences of a quantum nature or exceedingly strange to us, but perhaps not so to other types of intelligences.

The basic problem comes from thinking of the photons (or electrons or...) as inelestic ballbearings. This is the ultimate failure of materialism as a philosophy- the fact that material is not as the philosophy suggests ;-)

A most interesting paper about this--

https://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/fut_vis_r.txt

Read it- you'll like it...

I didn't know where else to ask, but ever since I learned about the ever-baffling double-slit experiment and especially the part where particles even behave differently when the ones following are going to be observed, something has been bothering me. It's probably too complicated and my question too simplistic (as is my grasp of the subject), but I was wondering what happens to particle A (as you put it), if the potential observer changes his mind or he and his instruments are hindered in some way in observing particle B. Would particle A "know" what happens to its companion particle even if the potential observer has different/undetermined intentions? I study English Lit. so I don't know the correct terms, and my knowledge of quantum physics is virtually non-existent, so I hope my question isn't too ridiculous.

I don't think any question is too ridiculous in relation to quantum physics. I think Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't!".

I think the easiest way to think about quantum physics is to realize that quantum particles aren't "real" in the same sense as the everyday objects we interact with are. Instead they are "real" the same way the laws of physics are, more math than matter. In a way the behavior of quantum particles isn't any more surprising than the existence of inertia or any other law of physics.

Maybe it's obvious but it really helps me to think of things in these terms.

"I was wondering what happens to particle A (as you put it), if the potential observer changes his mind or he and his instruments are hindered in some way in observing particle B."

It's a good question, but I'm afraid I don't know the answer. Any physicists (or physics buffs) want to take a crack at it?

The comments to this entry are closed.